Jason Haar wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 10:18:51AM -0800, Pete Hanson wrote:
>
>>Looking at the source for spamc, it looks to me like a message that exceeds
>>the maximum message size is simply skipped entirely, which actually requires
>>reading in most of the message first - fair enough, as
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 10:18:51AM -0800, Pete Hanson wrote:
> Looking at the source for spamc, it looks to me like a message that exceeds
> the maximum message size is simply skipped entirely, which actually requires
> reading in most of the message first - fair enough, as it's hard to
> determin
Forgive me if this has been asked in the past.
Looking at the source for spamc, it looks to me like a message that exceeds the
maximum message size is simply skipped entirely, which actually requires reading in
most of the message first - fair enough, as it's hard to determine the size when it'
