On 06/16/2013 03:42 PM, Yonatan Broza wrote:
> I'm considering patching Dovecot to work as a transparent (and virus
> scanning) IMAP proxy.
> [...]
Have you considered non transparent caching proxy?
On 06/16/2013 01:31 PM, Eugene wrote:
Or, as an alternative, most desktop antivirus tools have a
mail-scanning capability.
But SMTP is certainly better (though IMO even that is not really
needed if you have reasonable antispam filtering and think before
opening attachments).
In my experience,
From: Reindl Harald
why would someone implement a virus scanner on the IMAP-level?
what happens with POP3?
this has to be done on SMTP level long before the message is stored
and not every time a client is downloading a message
Or, as an alternative, most desktop antivirus tools have a mail-
On 16.6.2013, at 16.42, Yonatan Broza wrote:
> I'm considering patching Dovecot to work as a transparent (and virus
> scanning) IMAP proxy.
>
> What is the appropriate feature to extend? (I've considered the following:
> IMAPC and reverse proxying, with IMAPC looking more promising since it
>
Am 16.06.2013 15:42, schrieb Yonatan Broza:
> I'm considering patching Dovecot to work as a transparent (and virus
> scanning) IMAP proxy
why would someone implement a virus scanner on the IMAP-level?
what happens with POP3?
this has to be done on SMTP level long before the message is stored
a
Hi,
I'm considering patching Dovecot to work as a transparent (and virus
scanning) IMAP proxy.
What is the appropriate feature to extend? (I've considered the
following: IMAPC and reverse proxying, with IMAPC looking more promising
since it actually parses IMAP communication).
Can anyone w
