[Mimedefang] TESTVIRUS.org - test question

[Rob]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mimedefang-bounces at lists.roaringpenguin.com 
> [mailto:mimedefang-bounces at lists.roaringpenguin.com] On 
> Behalf Of Dirk Mueller
> 
> Its not a half-hearted solution. What would you think about 
> ClamAV detecting a 
> virus in a mail, but then not finding the entity containing 
> the virus (like 
> for dropping it in your filter). sure you would consider that 
> a bug too..  right?

Why should I care - if it finds a virus in the email then the email gets
dropped in the bit bucket (or quarantined).  At that point it becomes
utterly irrelevant *where* the virus is in the email.

Yes, there's always the option of stripping out the virus from the email -
but why?  It's pretty unlikely (for values of unlikely approximating zero)
that there will be any legitimate content in a virus infected email.

> > Yeah, I solved the problem by using clamav-milter itself.  
> I'd rather not
> > have something else in the loop (more things to break), but 
> I'll live with
> > it.
> 
> Well, more things in the loop can also prevent a single thing 
> to break if 
> combined cleverly (like using two virus scanners instead of 
> one, since one 
> alone always tends to be out of date just the very second you 
> would need it). 

Which is why I've got more than one in the loop.  By the time any email gets
to my mail client it's been through 4 different scanners :)  So far (touch
wood) nothing's got through to the client, yet.

I'd like to only use MD, not MD and clamav-milter, purely to keep overheads
minimal.  I'll probably play with David's suggestion later next week and see
if it works for me, in which case I can junk clamav-milter.


PLEASE - keep list traffic on the list.  Email sent directly to me may be
ignored utterly.

-- 
Rob | What part of "no" was it you didn't understand?