On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 09:47:07AM -0400, Jesse Guardiani wrote:
clicks on the .eml attachment - and gets infected...
I don't think that's a valid argument. If the user's mail server is AV protected
then the mail server won't deliver an infected email in the first place. If the
!!! But
If this was a real user, sending a virus-infected file, then both
methods would cause the user to be notified.
Not if you're using psender functionality. That is the whole
basis for this discussion. The addition of psender
functionality, IMO, makes in necessary to return a 550.
On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 06:32, Jesse Guardiani wrote:
Jason Haar wrote:
However, a 550 bounce doesn't say
jack compared with what the custom-written alerts of Qmail-Scanner do...
It doesn't matter. At least the user knows that his email didn't go through.
Yep. And that user will eventually
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 10:07:26AM -0400, Jesse Guardiani wrote:
Yes, let's look at my actual issue:
4. I am a business customer, and I rely on email to do business. I send
a word doc or a zipped binary attachment that just happens to contain
a signature that looks an awful lot like a virus
On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 07:07, Jesse Guardiani wrote:
Yes, let's look at my actual issue:
4. I am a business customer, and I rely on email to do business. I send
a word doc or a zipped binary attachment that just happens to contain
a signature that looks an awful lot like a virus to a business
What we *should* do is include a qmail patch to allow q-s to
return 550 message rejected because it contains a virus
when it detects a virus.
Then if the virus is using its own SMTP engine (most do) it
will be unable to send mails to our servers. No bounces are
generated; virus can't
