To send or not to send 'virus in email' notifications?

Wed Aug 20 17:16:30 UTC 2003

FWIW

In a message written on Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 10:04:05AM -0700, Steve Thomas wrote:
> From: Steve Thomas <nanog at sthomas.net>
> To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org>
> Subject: Re: To send or not to send 'virus in email' notifications?
[other headers editied]
> NO! Some organizations (the company I work for, for instance) use MailScanner on incoming AND outgoing mail. I tried telling this to the person who sent the Postfix regex, but, of course, my mail was rejected.
> 
> MailScanner is a very widely used product, and adding rules/filters like the one above only adds to the problems that the virus author is trying to create. Please forward this to NANOG - I tried subscribing to NANOG-POST, but my subscription request was bounced with "content rejected".

Note, unlike the postfix rule his message still made it past
spamassassin has he had enough "non-spam" qualities to offset the
rule I suggested adding.

Please keep in mind there may be legitimate e-mail with these headers
if you're going to use rules such have been suggested here.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
	PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20030820/c9c581fd/attachment.sig>