On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, Christopher X. Candreva wrote: > Pardon me if I'm confusing a discussion here with something from either > the spamassassin or SPAM-l lists, but every discussion I've read says > that returning a 550 at your gateway is the prefered method, as it > blocks actual bad stuff, while returning an error to the actual sender > of a false positive.
I think the 550 is appropriate for spam, only because it is more likely that any given message identified as spam is actually a real message. No spam-blockers advertise over 99% accuracy, for example. On the other hand, virus false-positives are so rare that I don't personally think it is beneficial in the big picture to 550 them. I have the idea in my head that this is the most common way of looking at things, but I could be completely wrong. Just wanted to mention that the 550 thing is typically brought up in terms of spam, so it's likely that's where you heard that kind of talk. Given that the 550 goes back to the actual mail server that delivers the nasty payload (not a forged one), I can see the value of 550ing viruses too (I just don't do it). I do monitor the quarantine stats, however, just in case I see something strange. Jeffrey Moskot System Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
