--
Sheldon Hearn (sheldonh@???) said, in message
<20030905150643.GJ15822@???>:
>
> Mail hosts should not generate bounces in response to virus or worm
> activity.
>
> Since viruses should be rejected at SMTP time, I can't think of a
> situation where Exim would accept an infected message, then fail to
> deliver it and have to send a bounce.
OK, hypothetically, I have exim installed on my corporate mail server and
I'm delivering mail originating on my netork to your mail server. My AV
vendor is just a little bit slower than yours at getting out updates. You
reject a message, at SMTP time, that I'm trying to submit, due to a virus
that got past my system's checks.
My copy of exim can't be sure why you rejected it, so surely it's obliged to
return a bounce back to the alleged sender at this end. My bounce contains
the entire message I tried to submit, or a portion of it.
The only alternative for my server is to blackhole all delivery failures!
Rejecting at SMTP time only solves the problem when you're talking directly
to the machine that has the virus. If there's an intermediate host, you're
just passed the problem on to them. I would like to see options available so
that I can use best efforts to handle the problem your server has just
passed on to me!
My vote would be the "bounce_return_body" option. As Philip mentions, option
"bounce_something" is a hack, while dropping return_size_limit only helps if
the virus is bigger than whatever arbitrary limit size was set.
Cheers,
Alun.
--
Alun Jones auj@???
Systems Support, (01970) 62 2494
Information Services,
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
--
[ Content of type application/pgp-signature deleted ]
--
