On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 02:51:13PM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote: | 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, spamc could simply output the modified headers | > (Subject:, X-Spam-*, maybe Content-Type:) and reduce the output on the | > pipe. (Marc's local_scan() only reads the headers from that side of | > the pipe and only pays attention to some of them anyways) | | There are several problems with that though: | - spamc would need to know how to mangle messages, the goal is | to let spamd do that kind of stuff.
spamd would be the one giving the output, but it doesn't _have_ to
output the whole message, just the headers that have changed. spamc
wouldn't change in that respect.
| - if said message is larger than the nK setting, who knows what
| gets chopped out.
The last (size-n)K of the message :-).
| I wouldn't want to send partial MIME content to spamd for processing.
That might be a bad thing, and it might not be ...
| - you won't get a "proper" score out of the message -- who knows
| what's in the last (size-n)K that would raise/lower the score?
While that's true, is it statistically likely to make a difference?
-D
--
Whoever gives heed to instruction prospers,
and blessed is he who trusts in the Lord.
Proverbs 16:20
GnuPG key : http://dman.ddts.net/~dman/public_key.gpg
msg06162/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
