On Sat, 4 May 2002, Nathan Neulinger wrote: > I personally couldn't care less about doing generalized virus scanning. > > I am however concerned about the constant load on my mail server dealing > with the worm traffic from these klez/melissa/hybrid/etc. infections. > > I would not be interested in putting in rules for catching every pissant > windows virus out there, however, if there were a provided set of rules > (i.e. in a contrib section or similar) that would catch the > headline-making-windows-worms stuff, that would be a great improvement.
SA is designed to flag messages as spam (or not) and pass them through for the end recipient to dispose of as he chooses. Using SA in this way on a virus would not decrease the load on your mail server, unless maybe you're talking about outgoing load that results from having your users's PCs become infected. In any case, it'd take either a collection of rules or an eval test to identify most viruses. There are lots of tools -- MIMEdefang, the procmail sanitizer, etc. -- that would do a more efficient job than SA. _______________________________________________________________ Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
