On 26 Mar 2004, at 13:12, bz wrote:
a recent discussion on ietf-smtp has been addressing the question:
"Do the must 'bounce' rules need to be relaxed for virus infected
Would a relaxation of the 'must bounce' rule also help here?
No. I think a lot of the time the "must bounce" rule is being
applied with virus notifications. The question comes down to: does
quarantining an email mean it has failed to be delivered? Most systems
quarantine rather than drop, yet they still send a notification.
A BCP would be a good idea though.
Unfortunately, as the RFCs are written, there is little wiggle room.
And, in my experience, at least at this university, virus infected
are NOT quarantined. Why waste hard drive space storing proven garbage?
Where I'm coming from, is working for a company that has historically
sent bounce messages in response to viruses (these are now disabled
pending a viable fix), I want to not have to argue the argument: "But
we must send a bounce or we're violating RFCs". I think for the systems
like ours that quarantine it's a valid argument to suggest that you
don't actually have to send that bounce.
Of course I think it's a valid argument anyway. Often it's better to
violate an RFC than pollute the internet.
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email