-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Sven wrote:
I see a leakage with on-access virus scanning while using IMAP. Imagine users
are sharing mailboxes, one uploading malware via imap, others downloading it
via imap.
Another one is the above mentioned virus scanner
MTA delivers a mail where the virusscanner finds nothing. Mail gets
delivered.
Some time later there is a scannerupdate. Now the scanner would find
a malicious content.
So I may instantly scan the complete mailstore each time a new
pattern arrives
or scan only each accessed mail with the lates
On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 13:21 +0200, Andreas Schulze wrote:
> Am 13.04.2010 20:37 schrieb Noel Butler:
> > So, you want postfix to accept the virus, send it to dovecot's deliver
> > which then calls a virus scanner and finds it infected and deletes it,
> > that makes absolutely no sense
> ACK.
>
>
On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 07:27 -0400, Jerry wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:37:04 +1000, Noel Butler
> articulated:
>
> > So, you want postfix to accept the virus, send it to dovecot's
> > deliver which then calls a virus scanner and finds it infected and
> > deletes it, that makes absolutely no s
On 4/13/2010 6:21 AM, Andreas Schulze wrote:
Am 13.04.2010 20:37 schrieb Noel Butler:
So, you want postfix to accept the virus, send it to dovecot's deliver
which then calls a virus scanner and finds it infected and deletes it,
that makes absolutely no sense
ACK.
but imagine:
MTA delivers a
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 13:21:28 +0200, Andreas Schulze
articulated:
> MTA delivers a mail where the virusscanner finds nothing. Mail gets
> delivered. Some time later there is a scannerupdate. Now the scanner
> would find a malicious content.
DEFINE: "Some time later". Are you referring to today, t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Andreas Schulze wrote:
So, you want postfix to accept the virus, send it to dovecot's deliver
which then calls a virus scanner and finds it infected and deletes it,
that makes absolutely no sense
ACK.
but imagine:
MTA delive
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:37:04 +1000, Noel Butler
articulated:
> So, you want postfix to accept the virus, send it to dovecot's
> deliver which then calls a virus scanner and finds it infected and
> deletes it, that makes absolutely no sense to me, when postfix could
> have had its call to amavisd
Am 13.04.2010 20:37 schrieb Noel Butler:
> So, you want postfix to accept the virus, send it to dovecot's deliver
> which then calls a virus scanner and finds it infected and deletes it,
> that makes absolutely no sense
ACK.
but imagine:
MTA delivers a mail where the virusscanner finds nothing.
On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 11:25 +0200, Sven wrote:
>
> Noel Butler schrieb:
> > On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 22:07 +0200, Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Frank Elsner (Mo 12 Apr 2010 19:18:53 CEST):
> >>
> >>> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 20:06:34 +0200 Andreas Schulze wrote:
> >>>
> Hel
Noel Butler schrieb:
On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 22:07 +0200, Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
Frank Elsner (Mo 12 Apr 2010 19:18:53 CEST):
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 20:06:34 +0200 Andreas Schulze wrote:
Hello list,
I use currently a non-dovecot pop3 proxy which has the ability
to scan all p
On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 22:07 +0200, Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
> Frank Elsner (Mo 12 Apr 2010 19:18:53 CEST):
> > On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 20:06:34 +0200 Andreas Schulze wrote:
> > > Hello list,
> > >
> > > I use currently a non-dovecot pop3 proxy which has the ability
> > > to scan all passing mails
Ralf Hildebrandt (Mo 12 Apr 2010 19:17:57 CEST):
…
> > 3. I think it's slow and I dont't know howto measure.
> > 4. I thint it's slow.
> > 5. I think it's slow.
> > 6. I like a "Plan B"
>
> Try it. The hardest part is to only scan mails younger than "last scan".
Virus database may have changed.
Frank Elsner (Mo 12 Apr 2010 19:18:53 CEST):
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 20:06:34 +0200 Andreas Schulze wrote:
> > Hello list,
> >
> > I use currently a non-dovecot pop3 proxy which has the ability
> > to scan all passing mails for viruses. And I like dovecot.
>
> I like dovecot too. But I think virus
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 08:06:34PM +0200, Andreas Schulze wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> I use currently a non-dovecot pop3 proxy which has the ability
> to scan all passing mails for viruses. And I like dovecot.
p3scan?
> I have to combine both.
>
> One (and the only) idea is to call a virusscanner
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 20:06:34 +0200 Andreas Schulze wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> I use currently a non-dovecot pop3 proxy which has the ability
> to scan all passing mails for viruses. And I like dovecot.
I like dovecot too. But I think virus-scanning is for the MTA.
--Frank
* Andreas Schulze :
> Hello list,
>
> I use currently a non-dovecot pop3 proxy which has the ability
> to scan all passing mails for viruses. And I like dovecot.
> I have to combine both.
>
> One (and the only) idea is to call a virusscanner a shellscript,
> installed as PostLoginScript.
>
> But
Hello list,
I use currently a non-dovecot pop3 proxy which has the ability
to scan all passing mails for viruses. And I like dovecot.
I have to combine both.
One (and the only) idea is to call a virusscanner a shellscript,
installed as PostLoginScript.
But I see multiple disadvantages:
1. it's a
18 matches
Mail list logo
