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 headers.)
(grumble grumble) Stupid mail programs.... (grumble grumble)
Yeah.... okay. Not so stupid. I'll comply....
Footnote: and I was refraining from commenting on another thread on how
people 'complain' about features of SA that don't work in ways that match
*their* style of thinking.... Oh, the irony.... :)
Has there been any progress...
No changes since this has been asked the last time.
(nod) Alright. So far this is still a less than once a week phenomenon,
for me personally. I just raise it occasionally to put a data point into
the archives. If my inquiry had shaken lose a bunch of 'me too' comments,
it might have led somewhere. But it hasn't, so the issue remains on the
far back burner.... :)
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 potentially do.
Now THAT is a curious comment. All the usage guidelines I have ever read
implied or outright stated that scanning mails over a certain size was a
significant degradation to system performance. Am I confusing the
guidelines for antivirus programs with those for SA? Would it be 'safe' to
run SA on messages with larger attachments? Anyone ever tested this?
- C
