Am 15.03.2015 um 19:50 schrieb Martin Gregorie:
On Sun, 2015-03-15 at 19:23 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:Am 15.03.2015 um 19:15 schrieb Axb: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 versionthen spamass-milter is the wrong choicehow 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 togetherNo 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
that's error prone and assumes that all mails are 100% valid adding headers is a dead safe process mangle other parts of a mail is nothence the only safe and right thing to do is have SA internally work with a truncated version for analyze transparent to the glue and other components or just continue with skip messages above a defined size from scanning at all
that could be even a sloppy implementation just truncate after XX bytes and analyze the remaining piece to keep that part simple and fast - at the end it would improve the result with as less as possible overhead and code compared to skip a message
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
