Kiril Todorov wrote:
Which could mean that a host not running a virus scanner would then bounce the DSN to the "sender"Ian Lewis wrote:
That is very interesting information Samuel. I shall be interested to compare
it to my own data.
We quarantine our emails just in case there are any which are genuine but
holding viruses. Not very likely but you never know.
Do I understand from what you say that having identified 4 million viruses
you reject them and they go 'back' to the often spoofed sender, still capable
of causing trouble?
I belive he meant rejected at SMTP level with a permanent error code (5.x.x)
Counter arguments are usualy
a) They should be running a virus scanner and they too should be 5xx/4xx rejecting. Serves them right.
b) Modern virus infected hosts are direct to MX emailers
Remember, there is a point that can be made here. Its plausible to conclude that every un virus scanned email service is contributing directly to the epidemic by allowing their users to become infected and spew crap to everyone else. Clogged queues are therefore no less than they deserve, as the arguments against virus scanning are usualy in the form of resource concerns.
Service providers should be aware too that allowing their users to become infected which generally result in tech support calls to the effect of "My internet is {slow|broken}"
Joe
_______________________________________________ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
