Re: per user post-data rejects, Processing after the end of DATA

[Is this too far off topic?]

Hector Santos wrote:
> We are at a point where an ISP or rather a MSP (Mail Service Provider) 
> not having AV software installed could be considered as a liability. I 
> recall reading (a BNA Legal and Business newsletters) about a proposed 
> Canadian bill that would make it a requirement otherwise fines and 
> shutdowns can be imposed in return ISP liabilities will be reduced. I 
> have not followed up to tell you if it was passed or not.
> I think there is a difference in the V and S in AVS.  AV is something 
> that can system wide. AS is more subjective.
Anti-virus has a considerable set of cost, intrusiveness, risk, and 
privacy tradeoffs that motivate service providers to give customers some 
choices. Customers who have a small budget and reasonably savvy users 
might want just a single filter, perhaps ClamAV. Customers who are very 
risk adverse would be more likely to pay for using multiple engines. 
Customers who are extremely risk adverse and less sensitive about 
privacy (or more trusting of the provider) might want heuristic filters 
that aggressively flag "suspicious" mail that then requires sandboxing 
or human inspection for a final verdict.
And any time you give the users choices, you run the risk of a 
disposition conflict. Per-recipient status after the dot would fix that.
<csg>