on Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 12:11:16PM -0400, Mike Mueller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Tuesday 30 September 2003 02:05, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > Seems > > like about the only way we're going to get a reasonable handle on this > > barring ISPs refusing to carry executables in email format. > > Hear! Hear! No more attachments - period. I'll settle for elimination of > any known sort of executable though.
No. Specifically: executables. Various other mail 'sploits -- there are some header buffer overflows, IIRC affecting LookOut -- exist and should be filtered as well. But specifically, AUPs against transmission of executable content, and concomittant filtering, would serve a useful purpose. There are opaque formats, from zip to tarball to encrypted payloads, which can be used by those sufficiently clueful to handle the task appropriately. MIME attachments of themselves serve many useful functions. There's an awful lot of baby in that bathwater. Starting with the signature on this message. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? A guide to GNU/Linux backups: http://kmself.home.netcom.com/Linux/FAQs/backups.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature