From: "David B Funk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Matthew Trent wrote:
>
> > > If changing the header size limit for Exim is a workaround, isn't it
> > > also a workaround to want the same ability in SpamAssassin?
> >
> > Well, Spamassassin is where the data comes from, and it should have
reasonable
> > limits on what it spits out. Exim already has a reasonable limit. SA
doesn't
> > have anything.
>
> OK, and what happens when some spammer/hacker decides to DoS you with
> messages with horribly long headers? Or Mr. Executive/Boss/... creates
> a maillist or alias that expands to 1000 recipients, etc...
>
> That's why industrial strength MTAs use dynamically allocated buffers,
> they've learned from bad past experience that any "reasonable limit"
> sooner or later becomes an unreasonable choke-point/attack-point.
>
> You may have no need to see all those match headers listed, but
> what about developers trying to see where their rules hit, or
> an admin trying to debug a particular message that went wrong.
>
> If you limit yourself to Exim, that's your choice but please don't
> expect the rest of the SA world to cripple our tool to fit your
> limitations.
> Maybe your time would be better spent over in the Exim community
> encouraging its developers to improve their program to the level
> that other MTAs have already achieved.
On another paw, Dave, you could rewrite say the chickenpox.cf rules
as __rulename and then collate at the end by adding them all up and
multiplying by 0.6 to get the results. If that result could be issued
as a spam score directly then you get the summation. I have hacked
spamassassin 2.55 when I "got made at it." (I repaired the foreground
vs background matching colors test and added another similar test that
seems to already be in 2.63.) But I have not gotten far enough to hack
that kind of meta value directly into a score. I'm not sure how I would
do it. But I believe it would have value for the chickenpox rules. (I'd
even use the square of the number of chickenpox hits with a much smaller
incremental value if I had the chance.)
{^_^} Joanne
