Marcin Krol wrote: > John Hall pisze: > >>>> But why would you want to accept and silently discard mail? If the mail >>>> contains a virus, don't you think it's better that the sender is told so? >>>> >>>> >>> No! That causes collateral spam! Think faked sender... >>> >>> >> Not if you're rejecting during the SMTP transaction, which is I think >> what was being discussed originally. >> >> > Correct, *but the default clamav message saying so is unreadable*. > Default clamav reject message is not customizable very much, not enough > to make it vary and indicate CLEARLY AND IN BIG LETTERS it was phishing > / it was spam (clamav used to filter out only viruses so it was not a > problem). > > So I need to replace it. > > So I need to blackhole the message myself (do accept, not deny) and > generate another message myself and send it during SMTP time with 5xx code. > > This is complicated, nevertheless, this is an optimum solution which I seek. > >
He brings up an interesting idea that I think I'm going to look into. Clam originally caught viruses and then was extended to phishing and spam. Yet I and probably most of you return a "malware" message for everything. I'm thinking about running Clam in a wan ACL and then parse the message to give a more descriptive error based on what was caught. -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
