On Thursday 17 Feb 2005 15:07, Tomasz Kojm wrote:On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:50:11 +0000 (GMT) Andy Fiddaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kind of.. there's a limit for how many times the mail scanner is > invoked, (such as for a message with zip containing message containing > zip containing message...), but not for mime recursion.. i.e. > parseEmailBody recurses through embedded MIME parts with no recursion > checking.
I can't help you here as my knowledge on a mail structure is very limited. That limit and its implementation will have to be discussed with Nigel.
The recursive blocking was taken out some time ago after a LOT of pressure in this list and through personal emails (there used to be a hardcoded limit of 10 recursions).
I am not about to start that argument again since it is the usual case of clamAV developers are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
I am not getting something here. By recursive 'blocking' do you mean a limit on recursion (that's how I read it) or something else? Tomasz seemed to indicate in a previous email that there is an email recursion limit set in Clam:
; There's already a recursion limit for mail scanning but it's not ; configurable (yet).
and
libclamav/scanners.c:#define MAX_MAIL_RECURSION 15
I'm not trying to start any argument, either. Just trying to understand how Clam actually works, given what appear to me to be two contradictory statements.
I get that the previous 800k email I mentioned is actually 200 nested emails. You are right about that and I missed it. But if there is a recursion limit of 15, and let's even say Clam looks at the 15 biggest ones first, so they're all about 800. That should still mean Clam would only need several seconds to scan through the first 15, then quit. But it doesn't. It takes much, much longer.
That's where I'm coming from. If mail recursion has a max setting, why does it take so long? If it doesn't have one, what was Tomasz talking about?
Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Yep. I think most of us on this list are HUGE fans of ClamAV. But it's human-on-a-mailing-list nature to chime in mostly to complain or report problems. Things would be worse if mailing list members were constantly sending sappy e-cards to the list though. "I Love You Guys..." "Thinking of you...", etc. Blecch.
I Love You Guys, Ted
_______________________________________________ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
