[olug] old news - but worth noting

[David Walker]

Looks like we're discussing Windows based end users.

I don't directly need to support users but if I did I would consider rewriting 
incoming mails so that any attachments with extentions not on my safe list 
would be re-written to a safer extension (i.e. .exe files become .exe.saf).  
Then the attachment gets through but the end user needs a brain to make it 
execute.

Also, I would rewrite mime types so that if the mime type is not listed as 
safe then it is changed to application/octet-stream or 
application/unsafe-attachment.

Then if you really wanted to go nuts you could write a small program to handle 
.saf files and "application/unsafe-attachment" types and pop up your own 
internal company warnings about those attachments.

On Friday 13 June 2003 02:07 pm, Tim V - DZ wrote:
> Word.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: olug-bounces at olug.org [mailto:olug-bounces at olug.org] On Behalf Of
> Jeff Hinrichs
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 5:38 PM
> To: tmelcher at trilogytel.com; Omaha Linux User Group
> Subject: Re: [olug] old news - but worth noting
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Trent Melcher" <tmelcher at trilogytel.com>
>
> > I wish I had the luxury to bounce all executables.  But part of the
> > service my company provides depends on users getting emails with
> > different types of attachments.  There are a few types we do bounce
> > back though.
>
> My working theory is: If two users aren't sophisticated enough to know
> how to zip/unzip a file, (zips are allowed) , they shouldn't be playing
> with
> (.exe,.com,.bat) attachments.  It would be like giving a 3 year old
> gasoline and a lighter<g>
>
> -Jeff