On Sun, 2010-06-13 at 11:35 -0400, Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > There are just a very few rules "scanning" non-textual parts of a mail.
> > Large-ish binary attachments don't have much of an impact on
> > performance. Large-ish textual attachments po
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Please do not hijack a thread. Please do not hit Reply, if you do not
intend to reply and contribute to that thread. Removing all quoted text
and changing the Subject does *not* make it a new thread or post.
(Hint: In-Reply-To and References headers
Please do not hijack a thread. Please do not hit Reply, if you do not
intend to reply and contribute to that thread. Removing all quoted text
and changing the Subject does *not* make it a new thread or post.
(Hint: In-Reply-To and References headers.)
On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 09:50 -0400, Charles G
I got another 1MB spam today.
I still don't want to kill my system by attempting to scan every large
mail that comes in.
Has there been any progress on an 'option' to scan only text portions of
mail past a certain size limit and/or scan only the first X bytes? The
former is preferable becau
