[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]


On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 09:32:50AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> > It's close.  If it can reject the message with a different 550 based on
> > what scanner tripped it, and one can configure a new scanner to do as I
> > suggest, it's perfect.
> No, it doesn't reject E-Mails this way, but rather sends an error back
> to the sender and the postmaster, and keeps a copy of the original
> E-Mail.
> Could be changed, I guess, would that provide any benefits?

I believe it would - mostly because it would allow you to write special
filters that do specific things besides virus scanning (in this case,
executable scanning, as I suggest..)

Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@bluecherry.net>     I N33D MY G4M3Z, D00D!!!!111!!
                                                      (Just ... don't ask)
<Kensey> RMS for President???
<RelDrgn> ...or ESR, he wants a new job ;)

Attachment: pgpPgS4KSw4u6.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: