Re: Question about Max msg size

2010-10-06 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 17:38 -0700, jdow wrote: > From: "Karsten Bräckelmann" > > > It seems like the size limit should be applied to the searchable parts of > > > the email, not any attached images. > > > > This is rather unlikely to happen. There is *no* size limit in SA. There > > is, however,

Re: Question about Max msg size

2010-10-06 Thread jdow
From: "Karsten Bräckelmann" Sent: Wednesday, 2010/October/06 16:20 On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 14:38 -0700, durwood wrote: > Because it *is* filed already. Please first search bugzilla, then open > a bug report. Pinging this thread to see if there's been any progress or decision on this bug.

Re: Question about Max msg size

2010-10-06 Thread jdow
From: "durwood" Sent: Wednesday, 2010/October/06 14:38 What amavisd-new finally did was to pass the first (x) bytes to SA so ?> that at least the spam didn't get a RBL free pass. Nothing like that in spamd/spamc, but why not open a bug? Because it *is* filed already. Please first search

Re: Question about Max msg size

2010-10-06 Thread David B Funk
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010, durwood wrote: > I too am starting to see quite a bit of spam that's *just* over the 500k > threshold due to ~4K-sized image attached to the spam. It almost makes me > wonder if they are doing this just to get it over the standard SpamAssassin > threshold. > > It seems like the

Re: Question about Max msg size

2010-10-06 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 14:38 -0700, durwood wrote: > > Because it *is* filed already. Please first search bugzilla, then open > > a bug report. > > Pinging this thread to see if there's been any progress or decision on this > bug. Wow, that thread's more than a year old. :) A lot of folks are li

Re: Question about Max msg size

2010-10-06 Thread durwood
>> What amavisd-new finally did was to pass the first (x) bytes to SA so ?> that at least the spam didn't get a RBL free pass. >> >> Nothing like that in spamd/spamc, but why not open a bug? > Because it *is* filed already. Please first search bugzilla, then open > a bug report. Pinging this

Re: Perl IO::Socket::INET6

2010-10-06 Thread Mark Martinec
John, > > Updating to a recent version of IO::Socket::INET6 would probably > > solve the issue and would be advised anyway - the 2.51 is pretty > > ancient, from October 2004. > > Thanks. Updating to 2.63 did indeed solve the problem. I'll file a > gentoo bug to get the version dependencies prope

Re: Perl IO::Socket::INET6

2010-10-06 Thread John Wilcock
Le 06/10/2010 17:13, Mark Martinec a écrit : Updating to a recent version of IO::Socket::INET6 would probably solve the issue and would be advised anyway - the 2.51 is pretty ancient, from October 2004. Thanks. Updating to 2.63 did indeed solve the problem. I'll file a gentoo bug to get the ve

Re: Perl IO::Socket::INET6

2010-10-06 Thread Ned Slider
On 06/10/10 16:00, John Wilcock wrote: Just installed spamassassin on a gentoo box with perl 5.12. sa-update gives: Constant subroutine IO::Socket::INET6::AF_INET6 redefined at /usr/lib64/perl5/5.12.2/Exporter.pm line 64. at /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.12.2/IO/Socket/INET6.pm line 16 Protot

Re: Perl IO::Socket::INET6

2010-10-06 Thread Mark Martinec
John, > Just installed spamassassin on a gentoo box with perl 5.12. > > sa-update gives: > > Constant subroutine IO::Socket::INET6::AF_INET6 redefined at > > /usr/lib64/perl5/5.12.2/Exporter.pm line 64. > > at /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.12.2/IO/Socket/INET6.pm line 16 > > Prototype mismatch:

Perl IO::Socket::INET6

2010-10-06 Thread John Wilcock
Just installed spamassassin on a gentoo box with perl 5.12. sa-update gives: Constant subroutine IO::Socket::INET6::AF_INET6 redefined at /usr/lib64/perl5/5.12.2/Exporter.pm line 64. at /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.12.2/IO/Socket/INET6.pm line 16 Prototype mismatch: sub IO::Socket::INET6::A