Re: More large spam....

2010-06-14 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
On Sun, 2010-06-13 at 11:35 -0400, Charles Gregory wrote: On Sat, 12 Jun 2010, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: There are just a very few rules scanning non-textual parts of a mail. Large-ish binary attachments don't have much of an impact on performance. Large-ish textual attachments

Re: More large spam....

2010-06-13 Thread Charles Gregory
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: Please do not hijack a thread. Please do not hit Reply, if you do not intend to reply and contribute to that thread. Removing all quoted text and changing the Subject does *not* make it a new thread or post. (Hint: In-Reply-To and References

More large spam....

2010-06-12 Thread Charles Gregory
I got another 1MB spam today. I still don't want to kill my system by attempting to scan every large mail that comes in. Has there been any progress on an 'option' to scan only text portions of mail past a certain size limit and/or scan only the first X bytes? The former is preferable

Re: More large spam....

2010-06-12 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
Please do not hijack a thread. Please do not hit Reply, if you do not intend to reply and contribute to that thread. Removing all quoted text and changing the Subject does *not* make it a new thread or post. (Hint: In-Reply-To and References headers.) On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 09:50 -0400, Charles