RE: [IMail Forum] Blocking Com Extensions (Attachments)

Tue, 01 Jun 2004 11:45:16 -0700

Title: Message
I would like a copy also,
 
Thanks
 
Dave Probert
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 10:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Blocking Com Extensions (Attachments)

 
Please send me a copy...thanks.
 
Tony Williams
 
-------Original Message-------
 
Date: 06/01/04 10:35:26
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Blocking Com Extensions (Attachments)
 
Please send me a copy...thanks.
 
Kris Hallman
 
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Sophia Pitt
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 8:59 AM
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Blocking Com Extensions (Attachments)
 
Please send me a copy as well.
 
Thank You
 
 
Sophia
 
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of David
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 11:42 AM
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Blocking Com Extensions (Attachments)
 
Todd,
 
I would also like a copy...
 
David
 
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Todd Bierbaum
Sent: Friday, 21 May, 2004 17:13
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Blocking Com Extensions (Attachments)
 
 
I totally agree.  I have a nice long rule that filters over 57 dangerous
file attachments.  The exact list was obtained from a open source
program called MIMEdefang.
 
I have been working with IPSwitch support to resolve an issue with the
when the e-mail matches the rule, if forwards it on to an e-mail
address.  The problem I'm having is that it's truncating the first 14
characters of the e-mail address that I specify. The rule works when I
set to bounce, but I want my outgoing rules to replay back to my senders
and notify them that they can't send that attachment.
 
ANYWAY, I would be glad to provide a copy of these rules to anyone who
is interested.
 
Todd Bierbaum - Microsoft Certified Professional
BankTrust
office 850-835-3335 ext 106
cell 850-598-3993
-=~=- -=~=- -=~=- -=~=- -=~=- -=~=- -=~=- -=~=- -=~=-
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
notify the system manager and the sender.
-=~=- -=~=- -=~=- -=~=- -=~=- -=~=- -=~=- -=~=- -=~=-
 
 
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chris
Langsenkamp
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 12:42 AM
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Blocking Com Extensions (Attachments)
 
 
I wish more mail admins would take bad mail seriously, and virus scan
both inbound and outbound for viruses an other assorted trash. We're
more tuned in, and more likely to have better, more up-to-date software,
and frankly we have to have it anyway on our systems for our own
protection, so scanning the mail that moves through our system should
cost us very little, and benefits so many ...many beyond our own
individual customer bases.
 
One of these days mail admins will unite and put the RFC's and standards
up on a pedestal, maybe fixing what we collectively think is broken, and
then we'll say to the world, "There - comply or you can't function with
anyone!  We're not gonna tolerate it any more!"  Legislation doesn't
kill spam or network abuse, but lazy administration and over-tolerance
to bent/broken rules and standards has contributed to the problem.  If
we stand together and draw a line in the sand a lot of things might
stop, or at least be laregley reduced...
 
One of these days I'll get the attic cleaned out too......fat chance
either way....
 
Chris
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Matrosity Tech Support
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 3:56 PM
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Blocking Com Extensions (Attachments)
 
 
It's interesting that we (ISP's) have been roped into taking care of
Viruses for our customers rather than them paying for their own
Antivirus software.
 
I resolved the problem by deleting any email that comes in with
attachments with the common problem extensions.
 
 
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Eric Geater
5/3/04
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 3:48 PM
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Blocking Com Extensions (Attachments)
 
 
> RE: "If I needed to send someone a legitimate "dot" exe file, I change
 
> the extension to "ex_" before I send it, since my recipient would be
> expecting the file to arrive anyway."
>
> I wish all users were like this but.. alas... they are not :(
 
Actually, I have a rationale that says none of my users need "dot" exe
files.
 
In the Windows 98 world, where all this originated, it made sense to
block them because they would execute and install without administrative
privilege.  Now that all my 2k and XP users are set up as "less than
administrator", it's not so much an issue anymore.
 
However, I have noticed that more ISPs use Imail than I originally
expected. In that line of work, you have to have that clearinghouse, I
suppose, else your customers get really bent.
 
 
List Archive:
 
 
List Archive:
 
 
List Archive:
 
 
List Archive:
 
 
List Archive:
 
 
 
 
List Archive:
 
 
 
.

"The information in this electronic mail message is the sender's business confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this internet electronic mail message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful."

"The sender believes that this E-mail and any attachments were free of any virus, worm, Trojan horse, and/or malicious code when sent. This message and its attachments could have been infected during transmission. By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking protective and remedial action about viruses and other defects. The sender's employer is not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments."

Reply via email to