Alex wrote:
What settings do people typically have these days for the maximum
scanned message size? Surprisingly, at least to me, I'm seeing spam in
the 650k and 700k range, at least a few per hour, and are not scanned.
Does anyone have any suggestions for optimizing the process for spam
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:05:57AM -0400, Adam Katz wrote:
Wasn't some earlier version of SA capable of scanning just the /first/
[size] of an email? Probably harder to implement within MIME, but
some control to internally truncate remaining pieces (for scanning
only, like the
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Henrik K wrote:
SA 3.3 has special handling for truncated messages
Excuse me for not *thinking* earlier, but it occurs to me that there is a
very big drawback to *truncating* a message before passing it to SA, as
opposed to my original request/suggestion to *flag*
Hi,
Does anyone have any suggestions for optimizing the process for spam
containing just a large image that would therefore bypass the typical
scanning? Should I be scanning messages that large, then?
Depends on your available CPU resources. If you always have a low
load average, you can
On Wednesday March 31 2010 18:05:52 Charles Gregory wrote:
Excuse me for not *thinking* earlier, but it occurs to me that there is a
very big drawback to *truncating* a message before passing it to SA, as
opposed to my original request/suggestion to *flag* (or set a config
param?) to tell SA
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Mark Martinec wrote:
and let it handle arbitrary size messages by avoiding its current
paradigm of keeping the entire message in memory.
Is there really a problem with the in-memory size? I would have thought
the major concern was the processing time for evaluating
On Wednesday March 31 2010 23:43:25 Charles Gregory wrote:
Is there really a problem with the in-memory size? I would have thought
the major concern was the processing time for evaluating 'full' (and
rawbody?) rules on a large message
Yes, sure, the main issue is with evaluating regexp
Hi,
What settings do people typically have these days for the maximum
scanned message size? Surprisingly, at least to me, I'm seeing spam in
the 650k and 700k range, at least a few per hour, and are not scanned.
Does anyone have any suggestions for optimizing the process for spam
containing just
Alex wrote:
Hi,
What settings do people typically have these days for the maximum
scanned message size? Surprisingly, at least to me, I'm seeing spam in
the 650k and 700k range, at least a few per hour, and are not scanned.
Does anyone have any suggestions for optimizing the process for
