Feature concept... "noisy viruses"?

[Julian Field]

At 17:26 20/02/2004, you wrote:
>Matt Kettler wrote:
>>However, there are those that continue to use Virus notifies and manually
>>maintain their silent virus list.. This would offer those administrators a
>>"reduced headache" alternative while still reaching their goals of
>>notifying senders where it's practical.
>>
>>I'm mostly proposing it from a concept of "If people are going to use it,
>>at least offer them an option which defaults to the most-safe behavior if
>>they fall behind in maintenance"
>>
>>I myself might even consider using the feature on occasion, despite my
>>opposition to general virus notifications. However, I won't push strongly
>>for you to implement it or not.
>
>I'd be in favour of this as an alternative to removing the feature
>altogether, especially if (as now) it matched on substrings. You could
>"whitelist" WM97 for example and then someone would get a wake up if
>they didn't know they had a macro virus, "Joke" or "Troj" would also
>show that those types weren't welcome. Specific things like Gibe-F can
>be added if they're high volume and known not to spoof.

So the only extra configuration option would be "Noisy Viruses =".

If a message report matched the "noisy" substring list, then the message
would be delivered and a warning sent to the sender (assuming other options
allow it).

If a message report matched both the "noisy" and "silent" substring lists,
then the "noisy" status would win. Then you could put "All-Viruses" in the
silent list and "WM97" in the noisy list, and the WM97 status would cause
the warnings to be sent, despite the silent list.

Does this sound right to you?
It looks quite possible to implement.

Do lots of people want this feature? Or is it only going to be used by a
couple of you?
--
Julian Field
www.MailScanner.info
Professional Support Services at www.MailScanner.biz
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support
PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654