QUOTED_MESSAGE: > The bad address would be my fault.. I am responding via > the web interface. Sometimes I type to fast and double key > letters :P > > I agree that it wouldn't work for outgoing, but maybe > you could setup a central quarantine for outgoing and have > someone there look at it when something gets nabbed.. you > could then, depending on what happened, be proactive in > letting the customer know they have a virus or whatnot. > Maybe have it send a message back to the sender that their > mail had been held because of (fill in the blank). Or you > could just scan outgoing, if nothing found, just let it > pass. Atleast you are stopping it before it wastes > bandwidth. > > I come from the angle of: the less I have to do, the > better. meaning less admin overhead, but it all depends on > how much this is worth to you and how much of a problem it > really is. I personally would just scan outgoing and have > notices setup to notify the user of virus > activity. > > Its too bad that no one has a way to detect virus like > activity, say the same attachment to 15+ people all at once > shortly after the person pulled down their email. That > would be REALLY nifty in finding and eliminating new threats > as well as saving bandwidth. > > Me being the US, I tend to forget about bandwidth > limitations on my end because I don't pay for a certain > amount per month. > [SNIP]

  EKKI skrifa neitt hér: