Re: Fwd: Problems sending mail from .mumble
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2008-04-14, Christopher Morrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's got some interesting implications if it's: domain.exe ... 'did > > you mean to go to domain.exe or execute domain.exe or display > > domain.pdf ?' the UI folks will have a headache with that I bet... I > > could see a rule set (simplified) like: > > It doesn't seem to be a big problem for .com... > oh I've been away from dos for too long (not long enough??)... so sure maybe this isn't a problem :) or maybe the load from .com-ish things isn't enough to notice? -Chris
Re: Fwd: Problems sending mail from .mumble
On 2008-04-14, Christopher Morrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's got some interesting implications if it's: domain.exe ... 'did > you mean to go to domain.exe or execute domain.exe or display > domain.pdf ?' the UI folks will have a headache with that I bet... I > could see a rule set (simplified) like: It doesn't seem to be a big problem for .com...
Re: Fwd: Problems sending mail from .mumble
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:17 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:50:25 EDT, Barry Shein said: > > > > So this is (yet another) fishing expidition -- as MIME types are a handy > > > list, if any of those strings were present in a header, as in > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED], would any well-known thingee choke? > > As a practical matter, 'bar.mime-type' had better be a proper DNS entry, or > a lot of places that do a "is the address at least putatively returnable?" > test (which *should* be essentially 100% - does anybody *not* check this?), > they will find it won't go very far. It's got some interesting implications if it's: domain.exe ... 'did you mean to go to domain.exe or execute domain.exe or display domain.pdf ?' the UI folks will have a headache with that I bet... I could see a rule set (simplified) like: 1) if -f domain.exe && -x domain.exe ; then exec(domain.exe) 2) if ! -f domain.exe ; then openlocation(domain.exe) that would be fun in the world of site-finder, eh? I wonder what word or excel or '$application' does with a random blob of html foo shoved down it's throat?? Is it still the case that folks thinking about site-finder believe 'all the world is a web-browser' ??? Seriously? > > As a second practical matter, I suspect that all the places that have already > decided that '*.biz' is a cesspool will be even more dubious accepting mail > from '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'. > and here I took the 'bar.mime-type' to be: domain.exe or domain.mp3 or domain.pdf ... Barry, which do you mean? (or which did Eric mean)
Re: Fwd: Problems sending mail from .mumble
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:47:04 PDT, Eric Brunner-Williams said: > The issue is whether "exe" in the root will break something. Rather than > just ask for a few well-known suffixes, and forgetting some, and leaving > out "ps" as it is already assigned to a ccTLD, I've picked on the > MIME-TYPE set of labels. Are you asking about actual MIME times 'text.plain', 'application.ps', and so on, or are you asking about the labels that one popular operating system sometimes uses to denote them, such as .exe, .ps and so on? Some of us use systems that don't insist on extensions - and the major one that does has a history of doing so poorly (how many times have we seen something with a name of foo.exe labelled an image/jpg and ending up executed rather than displayed?) pgppoPN5VRUrE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Fwd: Problems sending mail from .mumble
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:50:25 EDT, Barry Shein said: > > So this is (yet another) fishing expidition -- as MIME types are a handy > > list, if any of those strings were present in a header, as in > > [EMAIL PROTECTED], would any well-known thingee choke? As a practical matter, 'bar.mime-type' had better be a proper DNS entry, or a lot of places that do a "is the address at least putatively returnable?" test (which *should* be essentially 100% - does anybody *not* check this?), they will find it won't go very far. As a second practical matter, I suspect that all the places that have already decided that '*.biz' is a cesspool will be even more dubious accepting mail from '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'. I'm still trying to figure out if this was for real, or if it was intended to be posted 2 weeks ago and ICANN bureaucracy delayed it... ;) pgpu8VQSRann1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Fwd: Problems sending mail from .mumble
I was asked to forward this to the list by Eric: > Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:27:40 -0700 > From: Eric Brunner-Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Macintosh/20080213) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > To: nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Problems sending mail from .mumble > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Howdy folks, > > This isn't as much fun as tracking ships, but at Friday's meeting of > ICANN's GNSO Council (think "Hairspray") and ICANN staff on the process > for new gTLDs, the issue of file suffixes as proposed strings came up. > > Obviously the people who thought of wildcards (Sitefinder) didn't think > through the full joy of the consequences. > > So this is (yet another) fishing expidition -- as MIME types are a handy > list, if any of those strings were present in a header, as in > [EMAIL PROTECTED], would any well-known thingee choke? > > Clues on a clue-by-four. > > I'll summarize replies off-list (unless requested otherwise) and Thanks > in Advance, > Eric > -- -Barry Shein The World | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Login: Nationwide Software Tool & Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
