On Wednesday March 31 2010 23:43:25 Charles Gregory wrote:
> Is there really a problem with the in-memory size? I would have thought
> the major concern was the processing time for evaluating 'full' (and
> rawbody?) rules on a large message
Yes, sure, the main issue is with evaluating regexp r
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Mark Martinec wrote:
and let it handle arbitrary size messages by avoiding its current
paradigm of keeping the entire message in memory.
Is there really a problem with the in-memory size? I would have thought
the major concern was the processing time for evaluating 'f
On Wednesday March 31 2010 18:05:52 Charles Gregory wrote:
> Excuse me for not *thinking* earlier, but it occurs to me that there is a
> very big drawback to *truncating* a message before passing it to SA, as
> opposed to my original request/suggestion to *flag* (or set a config
> param?) to tell S
Hi,
>> Does anyone have any suggestions for optimizing the process for spam
>> containing just a large image that would therefore bypass the typical
>> scanning? Should I be scanning messages that large, then?
>
> Depends on your available CPU resources. If you always have a low
> load average, y
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Henrik K wrote:
SA 3.3 has special handling for truncated messages
Excuse me for not *thinking* earlier, but it occurs to me that there is a
very big drawback to *truncating* a message before passing it to SA, as
opposed to my original request/suggestion to *flag* (or
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:05:57AM -0400, Adam Katz wrote:
>
> Wasn't some earlier version of SA capable of scanning just the /first/
> [size] of an email? Probably harder to implement within MIME, but
> some control to internally truncate remaining pieces (for scanning
> only, like the pseudo-he
Alex wrote:
> What settings do people typically have these days for the maximum
> scanned message size? Surprisingly, at least to me, I'm seeing spam in
> the 650k and 700k range, at least a few per hour, and are not scanned.
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions for optimizing the process for spam
Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What settings do people typically have these days for the maximum
> scanned message size? Surprisingly, at least to me, I'm seeing spam in
> the 650k and 700k range, at least a few per hour, and are not scanned.
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions for optimizing the process f
