| 1 |
>> Very cool. I found out clamscan and avgfree scan the filesystem so I |
| 2 |
>> thought I should set it up, but if it's not necessary I won't bother. |
| 3 |
>> All of my mail users are on Gentoo so do I need to bother having |
| 4 |
>> clamav scan my incoming mail? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Well, they aren't going to get infected with anything, but ClamAV could |
| 8 |
> still keep the virus message (which is obviously unwanted) out of their |
| 9 |
> inbox. There are also some third-party signatures[1] for ClamAV that catch |
| 10 |
> scam/phishing mail. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
There is info on Linux viruses here: |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I shouldn't be concerned about that? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
>> I just did some reading on postscreen but it doesn't sound like a |
| 19 |
>> greylister. Should I use postscreen in addition to postgrey, or are |
| 20 |
>> they substitutes for each other? |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Postscreen isn't a greylist daemon per se, but it has the same effect if you |
| 24 |
> enable the "deep protocol" tests. Once it gets past the initial greeting |
| 25 |
> (into the "deep" stages), postscreen can no longer hand off the session to a |
| 26 |
> real smtpd. So, even if the client passes all of the tests, postscreen will |
| 27 |
> send it a "4xx try again." That's essentially greylisting. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Got it. Sounds like postscreen is the successor to postgrey. I will |
| 30 |
set that up ASAP. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Thanks, |
| 33 |
Grant |
Archives