moderated Re: Virus scanning


On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 9:42 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:

I don't think I would go as far as Lena suggests, and moderate them without that being a group option; I'm concerned that few group moderators would have the knowledge to make a safe decision for their group. A choice between "moderate" or "reject" might be useful, with "reject" the default.

Ok, so new group option for dealing with spam: either moderate or reject, with reject being the default. Rejected messages will be logged in the activity log. If I reject a message, should it bounce back to the sender, or should I blackhole it?

If a message in the archives is flagged as having a virus or phishing attack, should I put a banner on the page saying so? (and should I go back through the archives doing scans)?

By the way, I assume none of the above applies to the boatloads of absolute junk from invalid sources (malware-infected PCs and the like) that I presume you've been dropping all along. Those deserve the black hole treatment.

The fact that many/most groups don't accept messages from non-subscribers acts as a natural prevention for a lot of this crap. I don't accept smtp connections from IP addresses that don't have reverse DNS records. I use a few blocklists as well, for all connections to the site, not just email. I haven't done anything with SPF and DKIM data yet.



Join to automatically receive all group messages.