> From: Evan Platt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
> >
> > We just received a 419 spam with a 642 KB JPG file. It would be nice
> if SpamAssassin could at least look at the text of messages like that.
> >
> >
> Wouldn't FuzzyOCR pick up on that?
Not if spamc never passes
Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
We just received a 419 spam with a 642 KB JPG file. It would be nice if
SpamAssassin could at least look at the text of messages like that.
Wouldn't FuzzyOCR pick up on that?
> From: mouss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
> >> From: mouss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >> The samples I looked at could easily be stopped otherwise (I don't
> >> "usuall" get a lot of lottery mail with a large .tif from a gmail
> >> address!!). but it's not worth t
Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 13 September 2008, mouss wrote:
> >
> > don't use RDJ. use a recent version of SA and use sa-update. I use
> > 3.2.5 with JM Sought rules and few SARE rules. The latter haven't
> > been updated since long, but this is normal (they are considered
> > stable).
>
>
Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
From: mouss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The samples I looked at could easily be stopped otherwise (I don't
"usuall" get a lot of lottery mail with a large .tif from a gmail
address!!). but it's not worth the pain. if spammers start sending
large
messages, things will cha
> From: mouss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> The samples I looked at could easily be stopped otherwise (I don't
> "usuall" get a lot of lottery mail with a large .tif from a gmail
> address!!). but it's not worth the pain. if spammers start sending
> large
> messages, things will change...
We just
Sorry, the feature of not SA scanning if the message is 'large'.
--
martin
-Original Message-
From: mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2008 8:25 PM
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Skip scanning for large mails
Martin.Hepworth wrote:
Martin.Hepworth wrote:
Depends on you call SA.. Mailscanner for one has this feature.
sorry, I don't understand what feature you are talking about.
my point was that the number of large spam messages is too low for me to
spend SA processing on it.
The samples I looked at could easily be st
Depends on you call SA.. Mailscanner for one has this feature.
martin
-Original Message-
From: mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2008 6:42 PM
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Skip scanning for large mails
RobertH wrote:
>> From: mouss >
RobertH wrote:
From: mouss >
1MB is probably too large. There is not much spam with such size
(although few ones were reported here).
What has the studies of the average and realistic maximum of spam email
sizes concluded?
Was the conclusion the SA default size?
I am not aware of any s
> From: mouss >
>
> 1MB is probably too large. There is not much spam with such size
> (although few ones were reported here).
>
>
What has the studies of the average and realistic maximum of spam email
sizes concluded?
Was the conclusion the SA default size?
- rh
On Sat, 2008-09-13 at 07:57 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> I have reduced the size of what gets sent thru SA in my .procmailrc, first to
> 50k a few months ago, and just now to 20k, as I am running Fedora 8 here and
> often have lags that can last 2-3 minutes. Am I on the right track to speed
> t
On Saturday 13 September 2008, mouss wrote:
>Gene Heskett wrote:
>> There are rumors floating around that the python being shipped by
>> redhat/fedora is about 100x slower than python installed from the
>> tarballs.
>
>python? do you mean perl?
>
Possibly, at my age, CRS can be a problem. :)
I not
Gene Heskett wrote:
There are rumors floating around that the python being shipped by
redhat/fedora is about 100x slower than python installed from the tarballs.
python? do you mean perl?
Can this be confirmed?
See the recent thread "using RHEL / CentOS / Fedora perl?"
I have reduced
On Saturday 13 September 2008, Felix Buenemann wrote:
>Andrzej Adam Filip schrieb:
>> Felix Buenemann<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> is it possible to skip scanning with spamc for large mails? (eg.> 1MB)
>>>
>>> I receive lots of huge mail (15-30MByte) on my server an the scanning
>>> takes very l
Andrzej Adam Filip schrieb:
Felix Buenemann<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
is it possible to skip scanning with spamc for large mails? (eg.> 1MB)
I receive lots of huge mail (15-30MByte) on my server an the scanning
takes very long for those mails, that will be ham anyways.
Best Regards,
Feli
Felix Buenemann wrote:
Hi,
is it possible to skip scanning with spamc for large mails? (eg. > 1MB)
I receive lots of huge mail (15-30MByte) on my server an the scanning
takes very long for those mails, that will be ham anyways.
1MB is probably too large. There is not much spam with such siz
Felix Buenemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> is it possible to skip scanning with spamc for large mails? (eg. > 1MB)
>
> I receive lots of huge mail (15-30MByte) on my server an the scanning
> takes very long for those mails, that will be ham anyways.
>
> Best Regards,
>Felix Buenemann
-s m
18 matches
Mail list logo
