> -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew Trent [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 3:53 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Exim header size limit error causes big problem... > > > On Tuesday 10 February 2004 12:40 pm, Raquel Rice wrote: > > > Yes, I realize that. However, 8k seems like plenty to me, and I'd > > > rather see a real solution than a workaround. The way it's going > > > right now, that report can be DARN long, and eventually it may hit > > > the limit again, even if you up it... > > > -- > > > Matt > > > > And, I ask again. Why is changing SpamAssassin a "fix" and changing > > a setting in Exim a "workaround"? > > Because if SA has absolutely no limit, no matter how high I > set Exim, that > limit can always be reached. > > It seems like these new rules constitute a new "genre" of > large rule sets with > many small and similar rules all designed to work together. > Perhaps there are > special considerations that need to be taken for them. They > do seem to work > well (props to the creators/maintainers), so I'm sure many > people are or will > be using them. > -- > Matt > Systems Administrator > Local Access Communications > 360.330.5535
I actually though Fred had made them into meta rules. Or maybe it was another list goer? I know someone did. --Chris (I don't sleep much, and I like it.)
