> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Tim Legant
> This is the correct way to reduce memory use. You could even use a > bigger buffer, say 8K or so. If we're concerned about multi-megabyte messages here, I think a much bigger buffer would be fine. > The outstanding problem with doing this > is the filter. There are at least three rules that I can think of off > the top of my head that require the entire message body. They are > 'body', 'body-file' and 'pipe'. The 'pipe' rule could easily be > re-implemented to page the message to the filter program, as in your > code above. > It's not so easy to do so for the 'body*' rules. Does TMDA really need to check the body rules on a huge message? Are there any 10MB SPAMs going around? Maybe so, but I've never seen any. Would setting a message-size cap for TMDA body rules to check against reduce the effectiveness of TMDA? _______________________ Ron Bickers Logic Etc, Inc. _________________________________________________ tmda-workers mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
