mailing list archives
From: Bennett Todd <bet () rahul net>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:09:20 -0400
2003-09-26T13:49:08 Louis Erickson:
If there is malware in the message, why are you delivering it to the end
If there's nothing but malware, or if it's recognized as a worm,
then silently dropping it is in order. But in the general case, you
must assume that people would rather e.g. receive a cover note and
an injected sections saying that the application/ms-word was dropped
because it had a macro virus, rather than silent dropping.
As for rejecting, no thanks, I'm already getting too many pieces of
crud in my inbox because of badly-configured scanners that think
they can trust sender info in incoming traffic. Rejecting (at SMTP
dialogue time) isn't as bad as bouncing (which depends on the
trivialy forgable envelope sender), but in these days of spammers
exploiting open relays, it's still not appropriate. Malware should
be absorbed, then dropped only if you're sure there's no real
content, otherwise sanitized and forwarded.
In another life I run an ISP. I run virus scanners on all
incoming and outgoing messages. Viruses are rejected at SMTP
time, and the messages are not delivered.
Occasionally my ISP has to do that to cope with sudden traffic
spikes, and whenever they do, I get threats from MLMs to unsubscribe
me for the offense of being undeliverable.
Re: base64 Ilya Teterin (Sep 26)
RE: base64 Louis Erickson (Sep 26)
RE: base64 Michael Wojcik (Sep 26)
RE: base64 Rainer Gerhards (Sep 26)
Re: base64 Steven M. Christey (Sep 26)
Re: base64 Ilya Teterin (Sep 27)
- Re: base64 Bennett Todd (Sep 26)