Feature request : Dangerous Content Scanning option

[paddy]

On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 08:13:16PM +0100, Julian Field wrote:
> How about we change your patch a bit.
> In SweepContent.pm, do the "partial message" and "external bodies" checks,
> then bail out if we aren't doing dangerous content checks. The reasoning
> behind this is the partial message and external body checks directly affect
> your ability to scan messages for viruses, and are therefore rather more
> than just the other content checks. I would like the default behaviour to
> be to check for partial messages and external bodies even if they switch
> off the rather broad "Content Scanning" switch.

Agreed.

I didn't think about such issues when I was rolling the patch,
indeed I didn't even think about it when implemented the ruleset files
for the client I described: there were so many options to get through,
and I've spent so much time in that conf file, I (wrongly) assumed I knew.

So its given me something to think about, and perhaps it adds clarity to
the configuration as a whole, by highlighting the difference (even more than
it was already - if such a thing is possible!)

> And I don't think your last patch will ever get executed if the content
> scanning is switched off, as it is called from ScanBatch() which we already
> have left if content scanning is off.

This is in SweepOther ?

Oops, that first line should read 'next unless ...'

Is that what you mean?

(and I forgot to patch the conf file)

>Does that sound better?

Sounds very good indeed.

Regards,


Paddy

-------------------------- MailScanner list ----------------------
To leave, send    leave mailscanner    to jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk
Before posting, please see the Most Asked Questions at
http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/     and the archives at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html