>> both because it is inefficient and because >>viruses often have very large binary attachments which can >>cause SA to crash with an out of memory error, and let the
SB> Huh ? Never had that happen to me. I use the default max scanning size of SB> 256KB with spamc/spamd and I've never had a problem... I'm glad that it doesn't happen to you, Simon. It happens to lots of other people. I can't reliably run Spamassassin on files over 30K, much less 100K. This probably depends on individual system configuration, as well as other programs and load on an individual server. SA uses a lot of memory, but whether or not a server can easily handle the load is going to vary with the system. In any case, SA is NOT an efficient or particularly reliable way to scan for internet viruses. I think that virus scans should precede all other scans, and that can be done either with a program invoked at the gateway or a set of procmail recipes that are run before SA is invoked. There are a number of other reasons why SA is not going to work well for this purpose (but I really don't see a point in starting a debate, because I don't think anyone would disagree with this proposition, really.) -Abigail ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
