On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 12:10:41 +0200 Marcus Schopen <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's why I want to reject it, but inform the recipient - > not the sender - about the rejection. I think this is a terrible idea for two reasons: 1) What is the recipient supposed to do with the notification? Most recipients are not technically savvy and are more likely to panic than do anything else. 2) Unless you do some sort of rate-limiting, a poor recipient may find herself swamped with emails to the effect "You almost received a virus, but we cleverly stopped it!" IMO, REJECT is the way to go. In the 99.99% of cases where it was a virus, nobody will see the failure notification... but nobody needs to. In the rare case of a false-positive, the sender will see the failure notification and can pursue further action. Regards, Dianne. _______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
