Author: Sheldon Hearn Date: To: a.piesk CC: Tony Finch, exim-users Subject: Re: [Exim] ANNOUNCE: exiscan-4.12-22
On (2003/02/05 18:43), a.piesk@??? wrote:
> > No output is a traditional Unix way of indicating success. What's
> > wrong with using the exit status?
>
> well, using the exitcodes would be a fine solution if every scanner returns
> the proper codes.
> kavscan as an example returns always 0 if i remember right.
>
> so the problem is, how can one be sure that 'no output' indicates 'no
> virus'?
By making exiscan more flexible, allowing the operator (who always knows
best) to tell exiscan (which doesn't) what exit codes mean failure,
virus found and / or no virus found.
> introducing an option "exiscan_av_cmdline_treat_no_output_as_success' with
> default 'false' is a possible solution.
That would certainly fit in the with particularly non-general direction
that exiscan seems to be headed in. :-(
