On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 10:15:19AM +0200, Michael Renzmann wrote: > I agree, but I also see no reason to have this discussion arising over > and over again. Local filtering should do the trick until that moron > understands that it is a bad idea to automatic ansers to the spoofed > sender of a virus mail. My mailserver runs qmail (actually mailfront for SMTP) and rejects any message that ClamAV thinks to contain a virus with a "554 Message refused", which in my opinion is the correct SMTP reply for any message I don't want on my server (silently dropping the mail seems like a risky thing to do). No bounce message is sent by my server. However, I recieved this from the mailinglist manager: > Your membership in the mailing list LARTC has been disabled due to > excessive bounces The last bounce received from you was dated > 21-Apr-2005. You will not get any more messages from this list until > you re-enable your membership. You will receive 3 more reminders like > this before your membership in the list is deleted. Looking at my logs it must be outpost.ds9a.nl actually generating the bounce message. If 554 is not the right reply for such a message, what would be a better way to indicate that the message is concidered utacceptable by my server? If it is the best reply, what should I do to avoid being kicked off the list because my mail server doesn't say "that's fine with me" when it gets sent a virus message? Sorry for replying to an offtopic thread, but since the virus problem is apparently known here I figured someone might be able to tell me the correct way to handle such situations. Personally, I think it would be a very good thing for any system that distributes e-mail, especially one that multiplies it as well like a mailing list does, to refuse distributing content that is clearly of a malicious nature, to avoid increasing the size of the problem. regards, Arjen _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
