At 06/10/2002 10:43, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
>>That does sound like a good idea, though. You can use your MTA to
>>limit the processing of over-large messages and spamc can limit
>>spamd's processing to just the first nK of not-quite-as-large
>>messages. In addition, spamc could simply outp
At 06/10/2002 10:43, Derrick 'dman' Hudson 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 determine the s
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 01:43:02PM -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> That does sound like a good idea, though. You can use your MTA to
> limit the processing of over-large messages and spamc can limit
> spamd's processing to just the first nK of not-quite-as-large
> messages. In addition, sp
