Large emails being tagged as spam - false positives

[Matt Kettler]

Alex Broens wrote:
> just as a side note:
> 
> Had MailScanner not scanned this msg, due to its overall size, this FP
> (any possibly others) could have been easily avoided.
> 
> - Supports the SpamC logic of NOT sending msgs larger than X thru SA -

While it's true that would have avoided the FP, it would not have helped if the
message was shorter.

Personally, I'm strongly opposed to solutions that cover up the problem. In this
case, the problem is in how SA interpreted the message headers, and applies
equally to short and long messages. Advocating this as a reason to skip large
messages is advocating covering up the real problem.

That said, I don't think that MailScanner's "clip it off" approach is a
particularly good one, however it has NEVER caused a problem at my site, and
I've been using MailScanner for several years now (since at least July of 2002).
Apparently some folks do have problems with it, but I have yet to see one.

> 
> sorry.. had to let it out...

That's ok. It's probably a real issue, but it's irrelevant here.

> 
> Alex
>