On 2016-04-26 18:48, Kai Risku wrote:
I *do* think the solution is to check both leaf and non-leaf nodes as
my proposed fix does.
Then the administrator can freely apply banning rules on leaf or
non-leaf nodes just as he prefers.
You are however correct when saying this is more of a reporting issue,
as the banning rule for .docm did indeed block the attachment because
checking the leaf nodes also saw the non-leaf node that the rule
targeted. However I think I spent the better part of a working day
trying all kinds of reporting macros in an effort to actually get the
report telling me what was the reason for blocking. Spewing regular
expressions or mime paths at an end-user never resulted in anything
that I could dare put in front of the user trying to send his .docm
-file. In the end, my removing of one line of code from amavisd
immediately gave me exactly the result I was looking for with the
default reporting template.
Frankly I do not see why amavisd should ignore non-leaf nodes in
banning checks, because the more things checked the better!
With humble regards and deeply thankful for all efforts put into
amavisd,
Kai
You may be right, but I don't dare to change it for the 2.11 release,
haven't considered all potential implications yet. Some testing is in
order.
Mark
