I am using my local ISP's pop accounts. Best Regards, Jason Brower On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 08:09 -0600, Steven Stern wrote: > On 02/24/2010 11:40 PM, Jason Brower wrote: > > (: I let this conversation sit over night and this happens. :P > > Thanks for the lively conversation. It seems then, that my ISP is doing > > this some how. I don't have any amavisd.conf and don't have what ever > > that is, installed. That's where google keeps pointing me is to change > > that conf file to change. > > So, with deduction, I think it's my local ISP who wants to read my > > encrypted zips and as a result is really scaring the bagpipers out of my > > clients. > > Thanks guys and BR, > > Jason Brower > > > > On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 10:20 -0700, Jim Preston wrote: > >>> > >>>> Steven Stern wrote: > >>>>> Checking outgoing mail is pointless. Why bother? > >>>> > >>>> So you can reduce malware propagation? (And as a result, maybe not > >>>> end up on everyone's local blacklist for spewing garbage...) > >>> > >>> It is still pointless and a waste of processing power. > >> > >> Yes this exactly the way zombie bot masters want you to feel. That way > >> you can contribute to the spread of malware :^) > >> > >>> > >>>>> If I were mailing malware, I'd be sure to mark that it had been > >>>>> scanned, approved, and was safe to open. > >>>> > >>>> *nod* I won't trust third-party headers claiming mail is safe or > >>>> non-spam... I *will* happily trust third-party headers that say it's > >>>> malicious or spam. > >>> > >>> Again, pointless. I do not believe that there is any industrial > >>> standard or RFC that specifically states how to insert a header that > >>> that marks an e-mail as infected. Then you would have to consider, was > >>> it SPAM, a Trojan or something else and was it discovered via some > >>> heuristic examination of the document. You could probably craft a > >>> whole > >>> set of filters to exam the e-mail headers, etc, but why bother. Simply > >>> employing your own AV software is a lot simpler, and probably more > >>> reliable. > >> > >> Of course, I do think anyone feels that trusting an email that states > >> it is safe is an alternative to scanning by the receiver. > >> > > If you're sending mail directly from your client to Google's SMTP > servers, your ISP isn't touching it as the connection to Google is > encrypted. What are you using for an SMTP server? For example, I'm > typing this in Thunderbird and the smtp server for this account is > smtp.gmail.com, not my local server or comcast. >
_______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
