Eric Wood wrote:
Mike Peeler wrote:
Eric Wood wrote:
Honestly, I don't use TIMEOUT's in procmail but common sense tell
me to use a TIMEOUT=10 (or less if you have a blazing system).
Then, honestly, your TIMEOUT is 960. Common sense isn't engineering.
Spare me the quips.
I was merely pointing out that you said in essence "I have no relevant
experience in the matter, but I'm going to pound on the table anyway."
Okay, say a well formed (denial of service) message can target
SpamAssassin install causing it to loop until the normal timeout.
Then that lengthy engineered timeout would be distressful.
Sure, and let's also say clams got legs--saying it doesn't make it so.
I haven't used TIMEOUT before, but I'm now considering setting it to
10 at the beginning of my recipe (and extending it if there is a large
attachment or very large message size) unless someone can prove a
large (default) timeout is neccessary and harmless.
Well, I wouldn't stop you if I could. If you wanted to convince
anyone else they should do likewise, that wouldn't be how you'd have
to go about it. That'd be tantamount to saying you know your wild
lion repellant works, 'cuz, hey, do you see any wild lions here?
In other words, the burden of proof is on you. Because not many
people using procmail and spamc are even aware they have timeouts.
I believe that the contributing communities to both procmail and
spamassassin are diverse enough and vocal enough to find, debug,
and report problems of throughput or load.
Moreover, you haven't said a thing about why you'd rather just blow
spamc out of the water, rather than set spamc's timeout value.
Cheers!
Mike
____________________________________________________________
procmail mailing list Procmail homepage: http://www.procmail.org/
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail