On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 16:20:30 -0500 Bowie Bailey <bowie_bai...@buc.com> wrote:
> Without this setup, you are always at the "lower security" level. Ah, so you believe the glass is half-full whereas I maintain it's half-empty. :) > Of course, everyone would like to have a box that can handle fully > scanning every email that comes in, but for some people that is just > not feasible. In that case, such people have no business scanning their email and should outsource it or move to Google Apps. Seriously. We're talking about a critical piece of security infrastructure and skimping on it will bite you. > If you want to get the maximum out of the hardware > that you have, then I don't see any reason not to use something like > this. If you want to maximize your scanning capacity, you'll put larger messages aside and scan them later when the load goes down. > In reality, few spams exceed the current default size limits. So you > are not losing much by staying with those limits anyway. In which case the whole thing is probably moot and basing the size limit on load is an unnecessary complication. Regards, David.
