FWIW In a message written on Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 10:04:05AM -0700, Steve Thomas wrote: > From: Steve Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Leo Bicknell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: To send or not to send 'virus in email' notifications? [other headers editied] > NO! Some organizations (the company I work for, for instance) use MailScanner on > incoming AND outgoing mail. I tried telling this to the person who sent the Postfix > regex, but, of course, my mail was rejected. > > MailScanner is a very widely used product, and adding rules/filters like the one > above only adds to the problems that the virus author is trying to create. Please > forward this to NANOG - I tried subscribing to NANOG-POST, but my subscription > request was bounced with "content rejected".
Note, unlike the postfix rule his message still made it past
spamassassin has he had enough "non-spam" qualities to offset the
rule I suggested adding.
Please keep in mind there may be legitimate e-mail with these headers
if you're going to use rules such have been suggested here.
--
Leo Bicknell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - [EMAIL PROTECTED], www.tmbg.org
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
