[Mimedefang] Re: calling action_bounce() for viruses

[Stefano McGhee]

Reading this post, led me to a simplistic view of all this:

	If I view the MTAs under my control as the policy administrators of
our mail traffic, I can say that messages that are delivered to it, for
which I issue a 250 OK, are indeed delivered successfully. They reached
that machine that is part of our domain and will be processed normally.
Ordinarily, any message would continue on, within my organization, to a
user.  If it is a virus, an "intelligent user" (follow me ladies and
gentlemen), would delete the message as garbage upon arrival in the client.
What we are doing is automating and facilitating the "intelligent" act of
deleting the malware.  Perhaps is acting more like an MDA here.  The user
would have (should have) deleted it anyway and our corporate policy demands
it.  The message *was* delivered successfully.  It was only deleted as a
courtesy to the user, something they would/should have done anyway.


Just my $0.02.

Cheers,

Stefano

> 
> True, but .forward files are strictly speaking at MDA/MUA 
> level - they 
> do forwarding on behalf and under control of the recipient. 
> The "deliver 
> or bounce" requirement for MTAs is the electronic equivalent 
> of the old 
> rule (bolstered up by what may be the oldest still valid 
> international 
> treaty) that the post office must make every attempt deliver 
> all mail, 
> or return it to sender. Whether the recipient doesn't ever empty his 
> letterbox, has handed over control to an unreliable third party, or 
> glues a paper shredder to it is beyond the scope of any 
> requirement on 
> post offices (or MTAs as their electronic equivalent) - legally, the 
> mail has been delivered at that point, and if the recipient 
> chooses to 
> discard it, he will have live with the consequences if 
> important mail is 
> lost.
>