Email causing MailScanner to go defunct.

Kai Schaetzl maillists at
Fri Jan 23 16:21:19 GMT 2009

Steve Campbell wrote on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:29:57 -0500:

> If I were to lower the size restrictions, the spam just flows on through 
> cleanly with a score of 0, so I raise it, and of course, the load on the 
> machine suffers because it has to scan the larger spams.

I think most people's experience, including mine, is different. Over a 
certain value (most likely 50 - 100k) there's almost no spam. (Nowadays, 
they try to send short messages, so that Bayes hasn't much to work on.) So, 
going with 200k is a good measure. I was just under the wrong impression 
that the respective option was working like the usually used procmail 
I think it would be a good idea to add this functionality (Spam Check only 
first x Beytes of message") to MS.
Part of your problems could indeed come from the fact that you are scanning 
many large messages. How high did you set this option?

Another thought: in case you are getting so many spam with big size and 
others don't - could it be that your rejection rate at the MTA level is 
very low, so that you get spam in that others already reject at the door?
If you detect a majority of spam only with MS and not at MTA this could 
also be another reason for your performance problems.


Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services:

More information about the MailScanner mailing list