On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:
>> > I've added a test like this to catch it;
>> You do realize that this is probably the *most* inefficient way,
>> short of hand sorting, that you have of blocking the message?
>
> In terms of efficiency it's not all that bad; I could use badmailfrom
> or any of the other qmail coarse filters but via SpamAssassin was very
> quick and easy to change (without having to restart qmail).
Actually, using SpamAssasin means at least one fork and, given the usual
setups, an average of three. It also means at least one more sync() call
in the mail path.
Bouncing at the SMTP level often saves even /one/ sync() call in the
receipt process -- you are talking one or even two orders of magnitude
difference in performance.
Which, for a home user, is completely invisible. It's more relevant for
as ISP because the cost for *every* mail is increased by a new SA test
and it already slows things a lot. :)
> You're right though, doing it via qmail itself would have been a
> better way to do it. It is interesting to note that aside from myself,
> my mail server hasn't seen it anywhere else (yet).
I don't think it's a very virulent virus. I saw the bugtraq note and
yours and that's it, pretty much. Fairly dead, unless the world is sick
of hearing about macro virii. ;)
Daniel
--
I am, as I said, inspired by the biological phenomena in which chemical
forces are used in repetitious fashion to produce all kinds of weird
effects (one of which is the author).
-- Richard Feynman, _There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom_
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
