Matthew.van.Eerde wrote: > > Heh, this is the plot of Spiderman. > > The burglar is the viral message. > Spiderman is the receiving MTA. He chooses to reject the virus. > The virus deflects onto his uncle. > Spiderman is so racked with guilt that he turns to a life of vigilante > justice. > > Hope that doesn't happen to me...
I think you finally summed it all up with the whacky (but humorous) Spiderman analogy. This issue is difficult to argue from either side. The "proper" thing to do in order to conform to standards is to reject unacceptable mail (whether infected or not infected by a virus), being as descriptive as possible in the rejection statement. Policy-wise, however, it is best to discard infected messages. By discarding you (A) remove the virus and put it out of its misery, (B) don't send confusing rejection messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] that may potentially cause further infection of the innocent bystander's PC, and (C) reduce overhead because you're eliminating known crap mail that your virus scanner has classified as "infected" with virtually 100% accuracy and reliability. I would still argue that FPs from virus scanners are 0% -- big deal, even in the case of an FP you're probably discarding some sort of Windows executable, which should at least be rejected at all costs anyway. Windows executables compromise security on any network, so whether a .vbs was written for legitimate purposes or not, it can potentially self-execute in MS email applications. - Chris ------------------------------------------ Chris Gauch Systems Administrator Digicon Communications, Inc. http://www.digiconcommunications.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
