Banning .docm gives misleading error message

Mark Martinec Mark.Martinec+amavis at
Tue Apr 26 19:44:04 CEST 2016

On 2016-04-26 18:48, Kai Risku wrote:
> I *do* think the solution is to check both leaf and non-leaf nodes as
> my proposed fix does.
> Then the administrator can freely apply banning rules on leaf or
> non-leaf nodes just as he prefers.
> You are however correct when saying this is more of a reporting issue,
> as the banning rule for .docm did indeed block the attachment because
> checking the leaf nodes also saw the non-leaf node that the rule
> targeted. However I think I spent the better part of a working day
> trying all kinds of reporting macros in an effort to actually get the
> report telling me what was the reason for blocking. Spewing regular
> expressions or mime paths at an end-user never resulted in anything
> that I could dare put in front of the user trying to send his .docm
> -file. In the end, my removing of one line of code from amavisd
> immediately gave me exactly the result I was looking for with the
> default reporting template.
> Frankly I do not see why amavisd should ignore non-leaf nodes in
> banning checks, because the more things checked the better!
> With humble regards and deeply thankful for all efforts put into 
> amavisd,
>     Kai

You may be right, but I don't dare to change it for the 2.11 release,
haven't considered all potential implications yet. Some testing is in 


More information about the amavis-users mailing list