At 6:28 PM -0500 11/9/09, Jerry wrote:
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:08:10 -0500
Michael Orlitzky <[email protected]> replied:
Jerry wrote:
>
> You don't want to bounce the message, yet you are telling the sender
> that it was not delivered. That is inconsistent. Why not simply
> send a notice to the email originator that the message was
> quarantined? That would be consistent and factually correct.
>
It's not inconsistent at all. That's what you're supposed to do with
mail you know you can't deliver at SMTP-time. The sender's mail
server sees the "550", and reports the non-delivery to him or her.
Accept-and-bounce has been frowned upon for some time; it's called
backscatter and will make you a bad person:
http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=backscatter
Furthermore, almost all virus mail has a forged sender, so this is a
particularly bad place to accept-and-bounce.
Unless I am totally misunderstanding you, you want a copy of the
message. Is that correct? If so, you have in fact accepted the message
no matter how you try to word it. If you then tell the originator of the
message that it was not accepted, that would be factually incorrect. At
no point did I suggest implementing a 'backscatter' routine.
You really only have two options:
1) bounce the message
2) accept it and set up routing rules for questionable mail.
Jerry,
Not to incite a flame war here but STMP error codes are not built to
capture the nuance that Michael is wrestling with.
As I understand it he wants his mailserver to accept the message and
quarantine it for analysis and not for later delivery and NOT deliver
it to the recipient.
It seems to me perfectly acceptable to return a 5xx as the message
has not been accepted for delivery to the recipient.
Tom
_______________________________________________
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net
http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
