[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       postfix-users
Subject:    Re: postfix milter body chunk length
From:       Matthias Schneider <matthias.schneider () rmail ! de>
Date:       2019-08-16 13:51:05
Message-ID: 723883cd-5999-0754-e8fb-48e64881d11c () rmail ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

Any chance to get a config for MILTER_CHUNK_SIZE? It would be great so 
have an easy and fast switch. I may have different settings on different 
mail systems (because of 3rd party milters), its hard to manage 
different customized postfix versions in my distribution repositories.


Thanks,

Matthias Schneider

Am 16.08.19 um 15:32 schrieb Matthias Schneider:
> Any chance to get a config for MILTER_CHUNK_SIZE? It would be great so 
> have an easy and fast switch. I may have different settings on 
> different mail systems (because of 3rd party milters), its hard to 
> manage different customized postfix versions in my distribution 
> repositories.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matthias Schneider
>
>
>
> Am 16.08.19 um 14:49 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
>>> On Aug 16, 2019, at 10:33 PM, Matthias Schneider 
>>> <matthias.schneider@rmail.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> I was wondering why the transfer of a 100mb mail to my milter 
>>> application was slow, i found the bottleneck in the body chunk 
>>> transfer.
>>>
>>> The maximum packet length seems to be fixed to 64k, it would be 
>>> great if we could make that configurable in postfix (uint32 is 
>>> possible).
>> * milter communication fails if a single header is larger than 64K.
>>
>>      If a single header is larger than 64KB (which is not possible in the
>>      default configuration) then it cannot be transferred in one block to
>>      libmilter and hence the communication fails.   This can be avoided by
>>      increasing the constant MILTER_CHUNK_SIZE in
>>      include/libmilter/mfdef.h and recompiling sendmail, libmilter, and
>>      all (statically linked) milters (or by using undocumented compile
>>      time options: _FFR_MAXDATASIZE/_FFR_MDS_NEGOTIATE; you have to
>>      read the source code in order to use these properly).
>>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]