>>Is there a possibility that in default Exim setups, or default
>>OS-specific Exim packages, the exiscan config lines are being inserted
>>*without* the required message size limits, thereby allowing massive
>>emails to be scanned by SpamAssassin? that would inflate scanner
>>sizes nonlinearl
Craig Jackson wrote:
Is there a possibility that in default Exim setups, or default
OS-specific Exim packages, the exiscan config lines are being
inserted *without* the required message size limits, thereby
allowing massive emails to be scanned by SpamAssassin? that
would inflate scanner sizes n
Justin Mason wrote:
It appears that Exiscan has now become part of Exim by default,
and it also appears that (at least in the default exiscan patch)
it doesn't modify the config files directly to add itself to
the MTA's flow.
This is correct. The shipped configuration file doesn't include any
Justin Mason wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Recently we've been seeing a *lot* of Exim users asking questions
(here and on IRC) about spamd chewing up massive quantities of
RAM.
It appears that Exiscan has now become part of Exim by default,
and it also appears that (at l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Recently we've been seeing a *lot* of Exim users asking questions
(here and on IRC) about spamd chewing up massive quantities of
RAM.
It appears that Exiscan has now become part of Exim by default,
and it also appears that (at least in the default ex
