Re: Unfortunate interaction between EZMLM and MessageLabs virus scanning

From: Stephen Cope (mailat_private)
Date: Fri May 10 2002 - 21:14:51 PDT

Next message: gobblesat_private: "Fwd: GOBBLES RESPONSE TO THE BLUE BOAR ("fixed version")"

Previous message: Frank Knobbe: "Re: Flaw caused by default rulesets in many desktop firewalls under windows"
In reply to: Alun Jones: "Re: Unfortunate interaction between EZMLM and MessageLabs virus scanning"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Because the message is being *returned* as containing a virus, shouldn't
it then use the address in the Return-Path header?

It is a bounce message, not a *reply* (in which case it should use the
Reply-To or From header, as per the RFC 2822 3.6.2).

-- 
Stephen Cope - http://sdc.org.nz/

application/pgp-signature attachment: stored

Next message: gobblesat_private: "Fwd: GOBBLES RESPONSE TO THE BLUE BOAR ("fixed version")"
Previous message: Frank Knobbe: "Re: Flaw caused by default rulesets in many desktop firewalls under windows"
In reply to: Alun Jones: "Re: Unfortunate interaction between EZMLM and MessageLabs virus scanning"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 16:33:00 PDT