Sam, is it possible that Courier behaves differently depending on the return code of the filter?
I don't know what should be the preferred return code when a virus is found in a message. I currently use 554, can't remember why. The idea is to reserve one of the 5xx codes to bear the additional internal meaning that the bounce will contain no attachment. (A more generic approach would be to use return codes not used by SMTP, e.g. "850".) Although normally it is much more practical for the sender to get back the whole body, in case of viruses it is often the worst thing to do. The envelope sender address is probably just another address of the victim's address book: including the body enhances virus propagation. That's the rationale for determining the content of the bounce at runtime. I still have 0.39, but this summer hopefully will upgrade to a newer version. I'm asking in case in case such a feature is already in place... If not, do you think you'd take a patch in that sense? Ale ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01 _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
