Feature concept... "noisy viruses"?

[Martin Sapsed]

Julian Field wrote:
> So the only extra configuration option would be "Noisy Viruses =".

If you're actually thinking of implementing this, I'm not sure that
"Noisy" is the best description!!! I guess we're talking about
"Non-spoofing Viruses" aren't we? "Honest Viruses" perhaps? ;-)

> 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).

Sounds about right.

> 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.

That suggests you'd have to configure both, although since the default
is pretty well no notifications I guess that's not a big deal?

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

Are you sure there isn't a way of doing this with one of your amazing
rulesets?? ;-)

> Do lots of people want this feature? Or is it only going to be used by a
> couple of you?

I'd probably go for it if it were available. Since it would appear to be
a safer default way of working, how about scrapping Silent Viruses
altogether and just having "Notifiable|Honest|Non-spoofing Viruses"
which by default is empty? (or does that bring up the problems for
people upgrading??)

Cheers,

Martin

--
Martin Sapsed
Information Services               "Who do you say I am?"
University of Wales, Bangor             Jesus of Nazareth