Per-domain scanning control

Rose, Bobby brose at MED.WAYNE.EDU
Tue Jan 22 15:49:38 GMT 2002


Sounds kind of foolish and scary.  I prefer scanning everything thru our
gateway including our own domains because even our own domains have been
the source of email born viruses so I feel by scanning all mail I'm
doing our part for the net.  For example, when Goner came out last
month, Symantec didn't release the definitions to their liveupdate
servers until 5pm.  We had two exchange users in our domain become
infected and started their rampage before we could take measures to
block at the Sendmail gateway and exchange systems to prevent it's
further spread.  That's when I went looking and found Mailscanner which
really helped because we couldn't get a straight answer on licensing
from Symantec on their AV for Gateways.  The idea of licensing per
protected user is stupid for gatways when they are used for trusted
relaying.  There is know way to know how many people go thru it plus are
you not also protecting the external recipients also!?

Time could probably be spent writing it but I see maybe less than 1% use
of the feature plus wouldn't it slow down mailscanner processing if it
has to do yet another comparison.

"Trust no one Mr Mulder."


-=Bobby

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Field [mailto:jkf at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 10:16 AM
To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Per-domain scanning control


What's the general level of interest in a feature whereby you could have
a file listing which domains get virus-scanned, and only scan messages
destined for one of those domains. All other domains would not be
virus-scanned.

Spam detection would be unaffected by this.
--
Julian Field                Teaching Systems Manager
jkf at ecs.soton.ac.uk         Dept. of Electronics & Computer Science
Tel. 023 8059 2817          University of Southampton
                             Southampton SO17 1BJ



More information about the MailScanner mailing list