BETA: Max SpamAssassin Size for sendmail and Postfix

DAve dave.list at
Mon Sep 11 13:12:51 IST 2006

> Julian Field wrote:
> I have added the new logic to the Max SpamAssassin Size configuration 
> option, with just about all the extra features everyone wanted in here.
> # 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.
> #
> # Now for the options:
> # 1) <length of data in bytes>
> # 2) <length of data in bytes> truncate
> # 3) <length of data in bytes> continue <extra bytes allowed>
> #
> # 1) Put in a simple number.
> #    This will be the simple cut-off point for messages that are 
> larger than
> #    this number.
> # 2) Put in a number followed by 'trackback'.
> #    Once the size limit is reached, MailScanner reverses towards the 
> start
> #    of the message, until it hits a line that is blank. The message 
> passed
> #    to SpamAssassin is truncated there. This stops any part-images being
> #    passed to SpamAssassin, and so avoids rules which trigger on this.
> # 3) Put in a number followed by 'continue' followed by another number.
> #    Once the size limit is reached, MailScanner continues adding to 
> the data
> #    passed to SpamAssassin, until at most the 2nd number of bytes 
> have been
> #    added looking for a blank line. This tries to complete the image 
> data
> #    that has been started when the 1st number of bytes has been reached,
> #    while imposing a limit on the amount that can be added (to avoid 
> attacks).
> #
> # If all this confuses you, just leave it alone at "40k" as that is good.
> Max SpamAssassin Size = 40k
> I have only added the logic to the sendmail and Postfix versions so 
> far, as I want to be sure it works before I give it out to everyone.
> It's on as usual.
> *Please* can you test this out for me. If you think I have gone over 
> the top, and just produced a system that no-one can work out how to 
> use, then please do tell me and I will remove bits of it again. 
> Personally I think it will only be used by 1% of users at most, which 
> leads me to think I should remove the whole thing and go back to 
> something much simpler again.
> Your thoughts?

I think that is fine, the one line, one size is simple enough as a 
default. Those that believe a borked image is spam can still get the 
whole message loaded into SA.


I can try to get it tested, but this week is getting kinda full already.


Three years now I've asked Google why they don't have a
logo change for Memorial Day. Why do they choose to do logos
for other non-international holidays, but nothing for

Maybe they forgot who made that choice possible.

More information about the MailScanner mailing list