Max SpamAssassin Size problems

Denis Beauchemin Denis.Beauchemin at
Thu Aug 24 18:55:38 IST 2006

Logan Shaw a écrit :
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Julian Field wrote:
>> Anthony Peacock wrote:
>>> Julian Field wrote:
>>>> Sounds survivable. After the limit I will keep going until I hit the
>>>> first line that only contains white space.
>>> I have been watching this discussion with a growing uneasiness.  I
>>> could be wrong but doesn't this behaviour open up the system to
>>> problems with huge image files...
>> Yes, you are absolutely correct. Non-spam may well include huge images.
>> The problem with rewinding to the previous boundary is that you may end
>> up not giving SpamAssassin _anything_ to work with.
>> So it's up for a vote:
>> do I chop half way through an image?
>> do I chop at the end of an image?
>> do I carry on for a max of 100 lines of Base64 data or until the end of
>> an image, which is earlier?
> I don't like the last option at all.  It still easily allows
> a situation where a valid message with a valid image in it
> gets detected as a corrupt image and hits a rule that scores
> it as spam.
> If we assume there are 80 columns of base64 data per line, then
> we get 60 bytes per line (since each base64 character carries
> 6 bits of data).  That means 100 lines only holds 6K, maximum.
> So this option only works if the chop-off point randomly
> happens to fall within the last 6K (or less) of the image.
> If the max message size causes the initial chop-off point to
> fall any earlier, it still creates an invalid image.  If you
> have a 50K max message size and someone sends a 75K image
> (which is not out of the ordinary at all), this method will
> keep going up to 56K and then quit.
> Basically, adding the 100 extra lines is really not much better
> than chopping right at the max message size barrier, unless
> you assume that most images aren't much larger than 6K, which
> I don't think is a valid assumption at all.  So, this option
> adds extra complexity and doesn't really give much benefit.
>   - Logan
With all the measures I activated within sendmail (greylisting, 
greet-pause and bad-rcpt-throttle) and all the rules I activated within 
SA I really don't need to look at images within emails.  That's why I 
don't want the actual behaviour changed.  I do believe we can detect 
almost all image spams with other means currently available to all.


  °v°   Denis Beauchemin, analyste
 /(_)\  Université de Sherbrooke, S.T.I.
  ^ ^   T: 819.821.8000x62252 F: 819.821.8045

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3226 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url :

More information about the MailScanner mailing list