[vox-tech] the answer to all my virus problems

[Rod Roark]

On Saturday 20 September 2003 06:22 pm, Gabriel Rosa wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 06:15:32PM -0700, p@dirac.org wrote:
> > On Sat 20 Sep 03,  6:15 PM, Ken Herron <kherron@newsguy.com> said:
> > > --On Saturday, September 20, 2003 04:24:56 PM -0700 Rod Roark 
> > > <rod@sunsetsystems.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > >Cool.  I wonder if there's an easy way to get Postfix to
> > > >notice these attachments at the front door, and drop the
> > > >connection before all 150K or whatever have been received.
> > > 
> > > Well, if the remote end sees the connection drop in mid-session, it'll 
> > > typically save the message and try to deliver it again later. So this 
> > > feature wouldn't be all that useful.
> > > -- 
> > > Ken Herron
> > 
> > why not?
> > 
> > let them huff.  let them puff.  and after 3 days, they'll give up on the
> > delivery.
> > 
> 
> The point being that 3 days of huffing and puffing might end up costing you
> more bandwidth than if you just swallow the message :)

Well, you get the satisfaction of wasting the sender's
bandwidth too.  And for me at least, as a DSL user, incoming
bandwidth is cheaper than outgoing.

As for the Postfix solution that I actually implemented,
it's a bit unclear if the entire message is received, but I
suspect it is.  The sender definitely gets closed out with a
rejection message, not just a dropped connection.  At least
the offending mail is not saved to disk and does not require
another pass from procmail or SpamAssassin or whatever.

-- Rod
   http://www.sunsetsystems.com/