SA Max Message Size

[Julian Field]

I could do this fairly easily.
Would other people use it if I implemented it? I don't like adding a
feature just for one or two people, I really need at least a few people to
say they would use it.

What should I do if the "skip" size was set less than the "scan" size?

At 15:31 06/04/2004, you wrote:

>Do you think there would be value in making both options avaiable?
>
>Max Spamassassin Size to Scan = 20000  (truncate to 20K and scan)
>Max Spamassassin Size to Skip = 100000 (bypass spamassassin and process
>using normal delivery rules)
>
>Most corporate environments running MS probably have a 5-10MB attachment
>limit (or similar).  Has anyone ever seen a 5MB spam message?  Would most
>likely be far too expensive for a spammer to send out spam greater than
>60K or so.
>
>I know this feature would be of great benefit to me as 90% of my FPs
>happen to be messages with large attachments.  Anyone else?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Julian Field
> [<mailto:mailscanner at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>mailto:mailscanner at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK]
> > Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 2:49 PM
> > To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> > Subject: Re: SA Max Message Size
> >
> >
> > At 19:26 05/04/2004, you wrote:
> >
> > ># SpamAssassin is not very fast when scanning huge messages, so
> > >messages # bigger than this value will be truncated to this
> > length for
> > >SpamAssassin # testing. The original message will not be affected by
> > >this. This value # is a good compromise as very few spam
> > messages are
> > >bigger than this. Max SpamAssassin Size = 90000
> > >
> > >(don't know how I missed this stnd option)
> > >
> > >If I am reading this correctly, SA will still scan a 100000 byte
> > >message but it will only scan the first 90000 bytes.
> >
> > Correct. I set this limit to 10 or 20,000 myself. Doesn't
> > seem to radically affect the score and it's a whole lot faster.
> >
> > >   By nature of the second sentence, wouldn't it be a good idea to
> > > (have the option to) pass these messages unscanned rather than scan
> > > 90K (or 30K which seems to be the new default) of a message that is
> > > most likely not spam anyway?
> >
> > The average size of a spam message is growing. My
> > "truncation" approach means you don't have to tweak it as
> > spam gets bigger. I used to do it your way but my way
> > produced better results, so I changed it.
> > --
> > Julian Field
> > www.MailScanner.info
> > Professional Support Services at www.MailScanner.biz
> > MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support PGP
> > footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654
> >

--
Julian Field
www.MailScanner.info
Professional Support Services at www.MailScanner.biz
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support
PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654