[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
so if someone overflows your server with a few thousand extra virus mails,
until scanners no
longer work, you would rather want the virii pass than ask the sender to retry?
Having some kind of alert to the admin would be really great, however
Indeed. If you are seri
Entelin wrote:
If clamd is down for whatever reason mail will stop flowing, if memory
serves the smtp session would give a "temporary failure" message. Is it
possible to configure qmail-scanner to try to use clam / sa but if it
doesnt work to just let the mail pass? Having the mail transfer utterly
Enterlin,
The combination of DNS, SMTP, and *nix provide all of the answers
for mail redundancy. The answer to almost all mail failure problems is
multiple MX records. The ideal solution we use is to have two or more
totally independent servers scanning your mail, and then passing the
mess
Hi,
so if someone overflows your server with a few thousand extra virus mails,
until scanners no
longer work, you would rather want the virii pass than ask the sender to retry?
Having some kind of alert to the admin would be really great, however
Wolfgang Hamann
---
If clamd is down for whatever reason mail will stop flowing, if memory
serves the smtp session would give a "temporary failure" message. Is it
possible to configure qmail-scanner to try to use clam / sa but if it
doesnt work to just let the mail pass? Having the mail transfer utterly
dependant on s
