#haraka

most likely you would need a custom setup... that toaster looks sweet but I'm not sure how easily it is to grow

we are also in the process of moving out filtering away from SA to rspamd with the help of Haraka

s/out/our/

I use the rspamd plugin and my own plugin, after rspamd, makes use of transaction.data_bytes

shouldn't rspamd update the data_bytes variable with the new data it added in the headers ?

or even more generally, shouldn't the add_header function automatically adjust the data_bytes ?

say that my downstream mail server accepts X data_bytes, I add 5-10 headers which cause me to go over that limit, but when I check data_bytes to make sure I'm good, it shows I'm ok when in fact I'm not

last1: see Base64 encoding overhead.

Unless of course the headers you are adding are huge.

data_bytes is the size of the input, not the output FWIW

Trying to keep data_bytes in step with the modified headers would be a waste of time, and it would be unnecessary overhead.

that's what I figured

it's just that I am writing a copy of all inbound e-mails

and I am also writing the file name as S=<size>

which I was getting from data_bytes and it turned out to be incorrect

the only other way I can think of is to write the file to disk, get its size and then rename the file

Why is the actual size so important to you?

well, in Maildir it saves dovecot the trouble of finding it rewriting the filename

the files I write will be ready by dovecot directly

read

Deliver it to Dovecot over LMTP. Problem solved.

I do that too. This is an archive copy

before it goes through filtering

I guess I'll just not write the S parameter and let dovecot figure it out

If you save it *before* anything else runs at hook_data_post, then the size should be correct no?

indeed

but I save after rspamd and after my own plugin which writes its own headers

I suggest it's not worth it. Let dovecot work it out and rename it. It's hardly expensive to do a rename.

cool, thanks

I was surprised in some cases how big the difference was

failed: Cached message size smaller than expected (458 < 1417

Yeah - that seems huge.