That just seems so wrong on many levels.
You mean a company, wants to NOTIFY their customers that they are
infected and sending their customers viruses? And would perfer to do
this?
Instead of have it bounce back to the sender, so the sender can clean
up his virus issue and resend a NONvirus email to the customer?
Quoting Patrick Ben Koetter via amavis-users <[email protected]>:
* Andrey Repin via amavis-users <[email protected]>:
Greetings, Jonathan Siegle!
> In the RELEASE_NOTES under "COMPATIBILITY WITH 2.6.4 / 2.6.5 / 2.6.6",
> there is discussion on why the default for $final_virus_destiny was
> changed to D_DISCARD from D_BOUNCE.
> When people talked about this, was RFC 5321 section 2.1 brought up? An
> archive thread on this is just fine.
> Why would it be bad to accept the virus e-mail and then do the following:
> Strip off the virus.
> Send the rest of the e-mail to the original recipient?
Because you're not supposed to modify the message in transit, except for
purposes necessary for complete, intact delivery.
That depends on the legal context (company/private) and country you are in.
We do have customers, who asked for this and we delivered such functionality.
p@rick
--
[*] sys4 AG
http://sys4.de, +49 (89) 30 90 46 64
Franziskanerstraße 15, 81669 München
Sitz der Gesellschaft: München, Amtsgericht München: HRB 199263
Vorstand: Patrick Ben Koetter, Marc Schiffbauer
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Florian Kirstein
