Enhancement request

Paul Haldane Paul.Haldane at newcastle.ac.uk
Mon Oct 15 14:58:16 IST 2001

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Field
> Sent: 26 September 2001 17:16
> To: MailScanner mailing list
> Subject: Re: Enhancement request
> At 11:47 24/09/2001, you wrote:
> >One facility that our local stuff has that Mailscanner
> >doesn't have (I
> >think) is the ability to rename attachments as they pass
> >through - for
> >example we currently rename attachments such as "thing.exe" to
> >"thing_exe".  Idea being to make executable attachments
> >non-executable
> >(at least without a fair amount of effort by the recipient)
> >even with
> >files that have been passed as clean by the virus checker.
> Unfortunately, this is actually really hard to do. To keep
> the load as light as possible (thereby making MailScanner as
> fast as possible) I don't touch the body of messages without
> viruses in them. Renaming attachments would entail rebuilding
> the message body for all messages with attachments, which
> would add significantly to the system load.

That's not strictly true is it (or am I misunderstanding)?  Any message
that has an attachment whose file name matches one of the deny rules in
the filename.rules.conf file well have to have its body munged as well
won't it?  We're only talking about renaming some attachments (*.exe
for example) not all attachments.


More information about the MailScanner mailing list