Feature concept... "noisy viruses"?
m.sapsed at BANGOR.AC.UK
Fri Feb 20 18:25:06 GMT 2004
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
> 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
Information Services "Who do you say I am?"
University of Wales, Bangor Jesus of Nazareth
More information about the MailScanner