SA Max Message Size

[Alex Neuman]

I'd love to have the option. Would probably clear up my queues faster on a
heavily-loaded system.

-----Original Message-----
From: MailScanner mailing list [mailto:MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf
Of Julian Field
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 8:50 AM
To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
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.U
> K]
> > 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