[Mimedefang] Re: calling action_bounce() for viruses

[Stephen Smoogen]

On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 08:02, Jim McCullars wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, David F. Skoll wrote:
> 
> > It's a tough call.  Philosophically and emotionally, I agree with you.
> > However, I have been annoyed more by bounce messages from viruses than
> > from actual viruses themselves,
> 
>    I'm convinced that most of those spurious bounce messages are the
> result of setups where the MTA accepts the message, then something scans
> it, then they decide to return it.  That's why I like the milter approach.
> Refuse it while you are connected to whomoever or whatever is sending.
> 

It can also be run into different firewall policies. Some firewall
philosophies say to have bare minimal proxies that can be easily audited
that accept data and then hand it off to heavier ones in the rear that
do scanning etc. I am not sure I agree completely with that philosophy
but it is 'dictated' in some areas and you have to then deal with it.


-- 
Stephen John Smoogen		smoogen at lanl.gov
Los Alamos National Lab  CCN-5 Sched 5/40  PH: 4-0645
Ta-03 SM-1498 MailStop B255 DP 10S  Los Alamos, NM 87545
-- So shines a good deed in a weary world. = Willy Wonka --