Another noob question - Dangerous Content and Virus subject meaning and scope

[Mark Sapiro]

On 10/28/25 15:18, betsys at well.com wrote:
> Setting “Dangerous Content Scanning = yes” disables all the 
> content-based checks except Virus scanning, Allow Partial Messages and 
> Allow External Message Bodies.

Actually, “Dangerous Content Scanning = no”

> But which are all the content-based checks? Does this apply to 
> attachments? To iFrame/Form Tags/Script Tags/webbug etc? Dangerous HTML? 

I think so.

>   Does it affect/override MCP?

I'm not sure about this, but MCP is probably obsolete. Back in 2009 
MailScanner 4.78.3 reversed the order of spam and virus checks, doing 
Virus first[1]. This allows various clamav rule hits to be treated as 
spam hits which can obviate the need for MCP. I think there was a 
subsequent post from Jules about this, but I can't find it.

Also, SpamAssassin Rule Actions can be used to accomplish similar 
results to MCP without the additional overhead[2].

> I’m being asked what we should tell the users about a message which 
> arrives with the Content Subject Text in the header, and I’m realizing 
> I’m not sure of the scope.
> 
> Similarly, if I have clamav enabled and
> 
> Deliver Disinfected Files = no
> 
> Will we ever see an occurrence of the {Virus?} subject?

For this you probably also want Deliver Cleaned Messages = no

> (I realize we’ll learn some of this during the beta, but the helpdesk 
> team wants to get docs written ahead of the beta)

[1] 
http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/2009-July/092711.html
[2] 
http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/2010-February/094867.html
-- 
Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net>        The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, California    better use your sense - B. Dylan