send response to client...

[Christian Bartsch]

Hiya all,

just switched to eWall 2.0 beta ...seems like this action is gone, I can?t
find it in the actions list. But I also can?t find "return code" or at least
can not change its value. Surprisingly, this is there afte converting the
filters. If I remove it, I can?t get it back, nor can I change its value. Do
I need to do this with an own script? Can anyone provide me with some
samples?

Regards
Chris

[Alexander Telegin [SSS]]

Hello,

So far this action is not implemented and perhaps will be added later.

- Alex

[Christian Bartsch]

Well, sounds good. I?d really like to have it "back" as this is a quite
useful feature when rejecting viruses that do come via other servers (which
I used to bounce with 554).

BTW running eWall since yesterday evening and it runs quite fine... no flaws
until now.

Chris

[James Robertson]

Hi Alex,

I agree with Christian and would like to see the custom responses to clients
reimplemented. I use it for viruses, bouncing blocked attachments, and even
for spam (yes i know that it is can lead to a DOS attack). For civil
responsiblity issues I can't take the chance at having a droped email return
a code 250.

Here is an example: a client sends his instructions for a financial
transaction by email but his SMTP is on a DNSBL or the e-mail contained a
filtered attachment so we delete the message. The transaction is never
received and so it is never processed. Somewhere down the road, lets say a
year later, he brings us to court and he brings along his SMTP server logs
that show that we accepted the message. Result, I end up financially
responsible for any losses or prejudices caused to the client.

In theory, I agree that sending a 250 OK code is easier and avoids having
the offending SMTP server from trying to resend a rejected e-mail over and
over again. In practice I rather be the victim of a DOS (but that is taken
care of by my firewall) and no e-mails get through than being responsible
for saying that I received something that in fact I never did. My only other
option is to stop filtering for SPAM and attachments and accept everything
and in the end stop using EW.

Sorry to complicate things but this is more of an operations problem than an
IT one. This is the type of subject that causes conflicts between IT and
management. IT says it doesn't matter (or whatever and followed by all types
of comments such as what do they know about systems) but management tells
them to go fly a kite because the IT personnel do not have final
responsibility. This is really an important issue and needs to be addressed
as soon as possible. For those who are not affected by this type of civil
responsibility they can chose to send a 250 but at least those of us that
are can breath easier.

I hope those of you that manage multiple domains or an ISP understand the
operation needs of your clients in addition to the technical aspects.

Cheers,

James

[HuMaStEr]

not withstanding the feeling of "jumping on the band wagon"; I totally
agree.
Put em back Alex! Put em back!!<G>

RB