[SpamCop-List] Re: firstname.lastname@example.org
baloo at ursine.ca
Sun Jul 25 16:07:59 EDT 2004
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Blammo <ric.gates at bigsleep.org> writes:
> On 25 Jul 2004 Steven Maesslein entered spamcop and left
> news:slrncg6sgq.uq.nobody at 127.0.0.1:
>> Either you reduce the CPU load by no longer scanning for viruses, in
>> which case you get a bigger mail spool, or you limit the spooled data by
>> scanning for viruses, which uses CPU power.
> Many just look for virus signatures, which I assume would take less CPU
> since you don't need to scan the entire body. This is easy to do in
> Postfix, and possible in Sendmail Milter (though I've never tried it).
Got you covered! Thanks to Steven Maesslein for the sendmail update.
> But still you can only reject after DATA which is of little use,
> except maybe for false positives.
No, it works just fine and hasn't caused problems. I've been rejecting
viruses this way for quite some time now, and it's worked exactly as
advertised without any surprises. There are no gotchas.
> Personally I would never scan for viruses unless I was paid a good
> amount to do so. I have no problem with blocking infected systems.
Well, scanning for viruses this way allows you to dynamically block
every infected system without human intervention.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the SpamCop-List