BETA: Max SpamAssassin Size for sendmail and Postfix

Scott Silva ssilva at
Mon Sep 11 22:55:50 IST 2006

Julian Field spake the following on 9/10/2006 11:58 AM:
> 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 say, if the defaults stay relatively the same, then go ahead and add
anything you want to add. I just don't really want something like this turned
on by default, especially after the amazing track record that MailScanner has
had over the last few years! I just hope that it doesn't cause you any
problems. New code always seems to bring bugs. Just like ants at a picnic.


MailScanner is like deodorant...
You hope everybody uses it, and
you notice quickly if they don't!!!!

More information about the MailScanner mailing list