Re: [Clamav-devel] New ClamAV Milter + Patch

2009-03-02 Thread Chris Moules
Patch now on Bugzilla (sorry for the mess, not use to the submission process).

Bug: 1448

Chris

Chris Moules wrote:
 Hi,
 
 I have been looking at the RC1 for ClamAV. With the rewrite of the 
 Milter it has removed one important (for us) feature. That is the 
 ability to notify clients that there mail has been intercepted.
 
 As an ISP here in Luxembourg we stand liable if we intercept and remove 
 mail without informing the client. Our current system informs the 
 recipient about filtered Virus mail and delivers UCE tagged (or 
 delivered to a Spam folder).
 
 I have had a look at the source to the new Milter and have seen that it 
 has simplified the program and made it much simpler. This is great. I 
 looked at the possibility for re-adding the notification possibility and 
 have had initial success with only a small patch. The style of the 
 patch, I believe, stays within the spirit of the re-write.
 
 Before doing any further development, I wanted to get an idea if this 
 might make it into the upstream code or if something like this would end 
 up being an in-house patch.
 
 Regards
 
 Chris
 
 
 
 
 ___
 http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-devel.html
 Please submit your patches to our Bugzilla: http://bugs.clamav.net
___
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-devel.html
Please submit your patches to our Bugzilla: http://bugs.clamav.net


Re: [Clamav-devel] New ClamAV Milter + Patch

2009-03-02 Thread aCaB
Chris Moules wrote:
 As an ISP here in Luxembourg we stand liable if we intercept and remove
 mail without informing the client. Our current system informs the
 recipient about filtered Virus mail and delivers UCE tagged (or
 delivered to a Spam folder).

Hi Chris,

I think the quarantine queue and the x-headers already offer quite a
good base for postprocessing the infected messages and, standing the
very peculiar needs of each mail server and deployment environment, I'm
not very keen to add postprocessing functionalities to the milter unless
these are extremely generic. Failing that, I'd rather leave the
postprocessing entirely to the admin.

 I have had a look at the source to the new Milter and have seen that it
 has simplified the program and made it much simpler. This is great. I
 looked at the possibility for re-adding the notification possibility and
 have had initial success with only a small patch. The style of the
 patch, I believe, stays within the spirit of the re-write.

 Before doing any further development, I wanted to get an idea if this
 might make it into the upstream code or if something like this would end
 up being an in-house patch.

The patch is indeed small but it's not really about notifications. In
fact it destroys the malicious message replacing its content and
subjects with some static lines (BTW, what if the mail carries let's say
a mua-specific exploit in its headers?).
Now I'm pretty sure this works good enough in your very case, but
frankly I don't see such a feature of much interest for general use.

OTOH, a generic notification system possibly together with blackholing
(as in your case), 5xx'ing or tagging, would benefit much more users...
Except the milter interface is not really designed with such things in
mind, which re-introduces a series of issues like determining if the
recipient is to be notified (e.g. local vs remote), assembling the
message, forking, invoking sendmail, etc...

But again, if you consider that the very same effect can be achieved
with about 3 lines of code in a sitewide procmail recipe or in a cronned
shell/perl mailq -qQ parser, you would probably agree that doing it in
the milter is not the way to go.

Cheers,
-aCaB

___
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-devel.html
Please submit your patches to our Bugzilla: http://bugs.clamav.net