SpamAssassin spamc BSMTP Buffer Overflow

Matt Kettler mkettler at EVI-INC.COM
Tue Feb 4 00:54:00 GMT 2003

Agreed, as Julian said, MailScanner does not use spamc, and I'm pretty sure
no version ever has..

And to add some more detail before someone leaps to conclusions and states
that using the command-line spamassassin is slow compared to spamc, it
doesn't use that either.

MailScanner is written in perl, so it calls the perl Mail:SpamAssassin API
directly without externally invoking either spamc or spamassassin. If you
do it right, calling SpamAssassin directly via it's perl interface is
substantially faster than either of the command-line methods of invoking it.

See man Mail::SpamAssassin for details on the perl interface.

The only bug that might be relevant to MailScanner that's fixed in SA 2.44
over 2.43 is:

* Existing lowercase x-spam-status header kills SpamAssassin (Bug 1127).

But all of the spamc/libspamc fixes, and the stdout bug are not relevant to
the methods of calling SpamAssassin used by MailScanner.

At 07:58 PM 2/3/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>See my previous answer.
>At 19:46 03/02/2003, you wrote:
>>     Does the configuration for MailScanner and SpamAssassin use spamc?

More information about the MailScanner mailing list