Plain text attachments might be fine. I personally prefer "a long inline attachments" myself, but that's a matter of taste. In any case, there are other types of attachment, such as MS Word .doc files, that create both potential security problems (for Windows users) and inconvenience (for Linux users). Attachments can include executables of many forms.
Allowing text/html, BTW, also raises security issues, not just onscreen unreadability for those of us with non-HTML'ized MUAs. Overall, I like Mike's approach. I only wish the bounce message could be configured to explain the problem automatically, instead of requiring Mike to send a personal followup. At 07:20 AM 3/18/02 -0800, Chad Carr wrote: >* Mike Noyes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> Everyone, >> I'm filtering our leaf-user list on header Content-Type. The only two types >> that post without getting flagged for administrative action are: >> text/plain, and multipart/signed. Note: this means that posts with >> attachments will not reach our leaf-user list. > >It seems fine to deny text/html since it can muddle people with "normal" MUAs >and no web browser installed, but what is the problem with attachments? Isn't >it more convenient to read attachments if you feel like it than to have to wade >through a long inline attachments that _might_ have some salient text at the >end? I don't know. I'm just asking. -- ------------------------------------"Never tell me the odds!"--- Ray Olszewski -- Han Solo Palo Alto, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Leaf-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
