Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 09:41:05PM +0200, wolfgang wrote:
>
>>assuming the scan-size limit would be changed from default 250k to 1250k, how
>>would that affect ressource consumption?
>
>
> It's highly recommended that people do *NOT* increase the max scan size past
> th
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 09:41:05PM +0200, wolfgang wrote:
> assuming the scan-size limit would be changed from default 250k to 1250k, how
> would that affect ressource consumption?
It's highly recommended that people do *NOT* increase the max scan size past
the default of 250k. Do so at your own
In an older episode (Monday 06 June 2005 21:17), Matt Kettler wrote:
> wolfgang wrote:
> > In an older episode (Monday 06 June 2005 20:08), Matt Kettler wrote:
> >
> >>I just recently received a run of spam which would push some system's
> >
> > scan-size
> >
> >>limit.
> If you use spamc, the
wolfgang wrote:
> In an older episode (Monday 06 June 2005 20:08), Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>>I just recently received a run of spam which would push some system's
>
> scan-size
>
>>limit.
>
>
> AFAIK, there is no default scan-size limit in SA, correct?
>
If you use spamc, there's a default li
In an older episode (Monday 06 June 2005 20:08), Matt Kettler wrote:
> I just recently received a run of spam which would push some system's
scan-size
> limit.
AFAIK, there is no default scan-size limit in SA, correct?
regards,
wolfgang
Thanks for the heads up Matt. I've told amavisd to start scanning 1+MB emails
for the time being. SA has been bored since I implemented greylisting anyway.
