On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 09:47:07AM -0400, Jesse Guardiani wrote:
> > clicks on the .eml attachment - and gets infected...
>
> I don't think that's a valid argument. If the user's mail server is AV protected
> then the mail server won't deliver an infected email in the first place. If the
!!! But
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 10:07:26AM -0400, Jesse Guardiani wrote:
> Yes, let's look at my actual issue:
>
> 4. I am a business customer, and I rely on email to do business. I send
> a word doc or a zipped binary attachment that just happens to contain
> a signature that looks an awful lot like a vi
On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 06:32, Jesse Guardiani wrote:
> Jason Haar wrote:
> > However, a 550 bounce doesn't say
> > "jack" compared with what the custom-written alerts of Qmail-Scanner do...
>
> It doesn't matter. At least the user knows that his email didn't go through.
Yep. And that user will ev
> >
> > If this was a real user, sending a virus-infected file, then both
> > methods would cause the user to be notified.
>
> Not if you're using psender functionality. That is the whole
> basis for this discussion. The addition of psender
> functionality, IMO, makes in necessary to return a
>
> What we *should* do is include a qmail patch to allow q-s to
> return "550 message rejected because it contains a virus"
> when it detects a virus.
> Then if the virus is using its own SMTP engine (most do) it
> will be unable to send mails to our servers. No bounces are
> generated; vir
On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 07:07, Jesse Guardiani wrote:
> Yes, let's look at my actual issue:
>
> 4. I am a business customer, and I rely on email to do business. I send
> a word doc or a zipped binary attachment that just happens to contain
> a signature that looks an awful lot like a virus to a busi
