Damian Menscher wrote: > Maybe I'm missing something, but they're not talking about not > rejecting. They're talking about not bouncing (sending out non-delivery > notifications in response to EVERY virus). There's a huge difference. I > think you'd be hard-pressed to find a legitimate company suggesting > making email unreliable.
The easiest way to distinguish this is if you are scanning the mail AFTER you have accepted delivery of the email, then discard, do not bounce. However, if you are filtering before accepting the email, then reject. As always, it is down to personal preference. I will admit that I would prefer to discard, as an email being returned to someone who is not the original sender with a virus appended can be another avenue of propogation if their virus scanning software is not upto date, or if they have no software installed. Needs must, and while the RFC's are an oft quoted standard in these discussions, they themselves can be extremely contradictory of each other. To be RFC compliant is preferable, but in honesty, most mailserver admin's are fighting a non compliant threat. It is of no use preaching etiquette to someone (or something in this regard) which is already breaking the rules. If the virus creators are going to break every rule they can, why should one fight them fairly. Tha dunt ger'owt fo nowt. Matt ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: YOU BE THE JUDGE. Be one of 170 Project Admins to receive an Apple iPod Mini FREE for your judgement on who ports your project to Linux PPC the best. Sponsored by IBM. Deadline: Sept. 24. Go here: http://sf.net/ppc_contest.php _______________________________________________ Clamav-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clamav-users
