Postfix anti-antivirus (was Re: [linux-elitists] procmail recipe for mydoom?)
Tue Feb 10 16:33:17 PST 2004
On 11-Feb-2004, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 11 Feb 2004, Ben Finney <email@example.com> wrote:
> > The destination has already reacted exactly the way the relay MTA
> > should have: by rejecting the message at SMTP time. The work is not
> > being shifted by the destination, but *by the relay*.
> The relay is too stupid, but the destination ought to know better.
> The destination knows that if it rejects the message at SMTP time, it
> will generate junk to the forged address. It shouldn't do it.
The destination is acting in the only way that will reliably give
information to someone who can do something about the problem: the SMTP
client (relay or otherwise) currently attempting to pass on the malware.
As opposed to silently dropping the malware, which isn't acting.
\ "I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate |
`\ those who do. And for the people who like country music, |
_o__) denigrate means 'put down'." -- Bob Newhart |
Ben Finney <firstname.lastname@example.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://allium.zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/attachments/20040211/6f66fa48/attachment.pgp
More information about the linux-elitists