-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
due to perl array behaviour, and SpamAssassin's optimisation for speed (ie. keeping multiple renditions of the message contents in RAM if possible), yes, exponential growth is expected. that's why message size limits are *required* ;) - --j. Thomas Jacob writes: > > Yes, a size limit is *required*. It's very important to limit > > the size of messages scanned by SpamAssassin. > > Well, we're limiting the size of emails that spamd sees now, maybe > that will "solve" the problem, and of course it's generally sensibly to > do this, as there isn't really much spam larger than lets say 250k, > but still, when scanning a single 10mb mail makes the spamd process dealing > with that mail eat >2 gigabytes of main memory until all of it is exhausted, > that doesn't seem like "normal" programm behaviour, does it? > > What could it possibly do with that much memory for a 10mb mail? ;) > > --Dxnq1zWXvFF0Q93v > Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" > Content-Description: Digital signature > Content-Disposition: inline > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFCqJE/gF9cFv867HwRAnrmAJ90MxIHmYLpEmu2rF3xgfBxagN9kACbB0Bk > d8DYXAZyrlf4PqiJwn3+lv4=pZMm > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > --Dxnq1zWXvFF0Q93v-- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFCqJXPMJF5cimLx9ARAmNAAJ90VGr4MPmdxUMFkNo0k+rF1caWoACgnwh9 BCYn0/eARe9p27+ZRboG3CY= =nwFz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
