SA Max Message Size

[Roger Jochem]

It would be intersting in this change for regular spam messages, but I use
blacklists for blocking junk mail (jokes, etc..) from some people, so the
spam coming from blacklists should not be skipped (in my case)...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Field" <mailscanner at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>
To: <MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: SA Max Message Size


> 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