On Sun, 2015-03-15 at 19:23 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 15.03.2015 um 19:15 schrieb Axb: > > On 03/15/2015 07:09 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > >> > >> Am 15.03.2015 um 19:03 schrieb Axb: > >>> On 03/15/2015 06:49 PM, Robert Schetterer wrote: > >>>> Am 15.03.2015 um 18:32 schrieb Robert Schetterer: > >>>>> tagging is allowed, rejecting is nice but not a must have > >>>> > >>>> if you like reject try working in milter chaining with > >>>> milter-manager http://milter-manager.sourceforge.net/ ( stats > >>>> included ) > >>>> this gives you option for complex filter scenarios with div milters > >>>> for size perhaps test combine with milter > >>>> milter-size > >>>> http://www.safe-mbox.com/~rgooch/email/index.html > >>>> and many other milter stuff i.e > >>>> https://www.milter.org/milter/98 > >>>> MSH Attach Filter > >>>> > >>>> not easy to do but should be extrem powerfull and flexible > >>>> so on topic you dont need to choose a "prefered milter", just chain and > >>>> combine all milters you like > >>> > >>> which makes much more sense thatn bending SA to do stuff it's not > >>> designed to. > >>> > >>> IMO, deciding what chunk of a msg should be scanned should be managed by > >>> the glue and not by SA. > >> > >> true but if the glue (spamass-milter) would truncate the message it > >> passes to spamc it would get back that truncated message with the added > >> headers (which are used to decide reject or pass) and so finally > >> *deliver* the truncated version > > > > then spamass-milter is the wrong choice > > how else should it work? > > it hardly can invent the report-headers SA adds by itself which needs to > land in the final message, spamc/spamd are doing the message work and > the milter is just the glue to bring the MTA and SA together > No but, as others have suggested, if the glue shortens the message by using MIME-aware code to remove binary attachments, it should be easy to keep them while spamd scans the shortened message and then put them back before the message is sent on downstream.
Martin
