> > Obtaining the information to keep the virus pattern file updated for
> > new virii is as big a project as maintaining and extending a program.
> > Or were you planning on stealing McAffee's or Norton/Symantic's work
> > by using their pattern files? Isn't it a lot easier to simply install
> > their product on each MS-Windows box and let it protect -all- of the
> > paths of infection?
>
> I can see no difference, you have to pay eigther!
> If the customer has to pay for a really good product, he has to pay,
> does he?
My point is that adding a virus filter to Exim would be doubling
the amount of effort requried to continue to maintain and extend
the code. Since there are already teams of virus experts producing
reasonably priced virus filters that integrate well with MS-Windows
and protect multiple paths of infection, there really isn't much
point in expending the effort to create an inferior solution to
only part of the problem.
> > No. There is -no- excuse for failing to educate the users.
>
> No, I said, give them an additional help, human beings do make mitsakes!
>
> However, I need a MTA virus scanner and I would appreciate help or
> comments, please help.... :)
You may -desire- an MTA virus scanner; but I sincerely doubt that
you actually -need- one. (Needing virus protection, or even specificly
protection against e-mailed virii isn't the same as needing an MTA
virus scanner.) If you are absolutely committed to such a partial
solution; I would suggest that you look into McAffee's product for
Linux. (I understand that it can also run on FreeBSD's Linux emulation
environment.) It shouldn't be too hard to come up with the appropriate
Exim config to pass mail through their scanner.
-Pat
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
