On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 14:51 +0100, Matt Fretwell wrote: > Dennis Peterson wrote: > > > >>> as it is harder to scan those messages for viruses > > >> > > >> Nonsense. Mail is mail. If you are running a mailserver, it should > > >be> able to cope with all types of mail, irrelevant of > > >> (creation|submission) > > >> method. > > > > > > But...if they're using webmail, it bypasses your mail server. It > > > would entirely depend on how "up to date" the webmail company's > > > scanner is and the virus scanner on your user's desktop is...unless > > > you're using a web proxy with malware scanner. > > > > My webmail is configured to use our standard smtp servers for all > > inbound/outbound mail. It really isn't all that difficult. > > > Exactly. Whatever numpty would have a web based application sending mail > directly, bypassing your smtp,
Yahoo, gmail, etc.... > (note the smtp, and not http), servers, > deserves everything they get. That is an irresponsible laziness of design > and implementation. Right, so they should be blocked. > MTA's were designed for a specific reason, to transfer > mail. You would not ask an MTA to serve a webpage. Why should a webserver > be exempt from this type of designed for implementation? Did you read the original post? The suggestion was to use MSN, yahoo, or gmail to get around a corporate policy. The answer was that we don't allow people to go to those sorts of webmail services because they are an unfiltered potential source of viruses (and other non-business activity). Yes, there are application-level web-proxies that could be used to scan those messages for bad content, but rather than break everything, we just block those likely sources of viruses and non-business content. Sure, there is a webmail layer on our MTA, and that's fine. But this is way off topic for clamav. _______________________________________________ http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
