On 03/15/2015 08:22 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 15.03.2015 um 19:50 schrieb Martin Gregorie:
On Sun, 2015-03-15 at 19:23 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 15.03.2015 um 19:15 schrieb Axb:
true but if the glue (spamass-milter) would truncate the message it
passes to spamc it would get back that truncated message with the
added
headers (which are used to decide reject or pass) and so finally
*deliver* the truncated version
then spamass-milter is the wrong choice
how else should it work?
it hardly can invent the report-headers SA adds by itself which needs to
land in the final message, spamc/spamd are doing the message work and
the milter is just the glue to bring the MTA and SA together
No but, as others have suggested, if the glue shortens the message by
using MIME-aware code to remove binary attachments, it should be easy to
keep them while spamd scans the shortened message and then put them back
before the message is sent on downstream
that's error prone and assumes that all mails are 100% valid
adding headers is a dead safe process
mangle other parts of a mail is not
hence the only safe and right thing to do is have SA internally work
with a truncated version for analyze transparent to the glue and other
components or just continue with skip messages above a defined size from
scanning at all
that could be even a sloppy implementation just truncate after XX bytes
and analyze the remaining piece to keep that part simple and fast - at
the end it would improve the result with as less as possible overhead
and code compared to skip a message
that wheel has been invented... and quite a few do it right. Your choice
of glue is not one of them. And SA shouldn't follow the bad examples.
