Dennis Peterson wrote:
> Now if we can make people aware of the evils of out-of-office
> auto-responders...
I know! Why isn't there an SMTP code for this?
-> RCPT TO: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<- 2?0 OK, but he's out of the office right now
-> RSET never mind then
Matthew.van.Eerde (at) hbinc.com
Jason Byrns said:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Which was one option I was already considering, and is exactly what we
> have now done. The customer in question jumped at the chance to get
> (.htaccess protected) web space anyway. In a way, I was expecting more
> resistance from that particular
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> He should make himself a website and post his work on it, then send
> clients links to the website. Oh, and he should sign his work with a
> certificate and give the clients his public key so they can confirm
> he was the one who wrote it.
Dennis Peterson wrote:
If you h
>
> Dennis Peterson wrote:
> > If you set up a file exchange server to allow uploads of these types
> > of files, all you've done is provide a back door for dangerous files which
> > could, if infected, impact systems outside yours. This could be considered
> > irresponsible behavior.
>
> I didn'
Jason Byrns wrote:
> In my example case, we have a customer who is a programmer. He wants
> to (needs to) send the results of his work to one of his clients.
He should make himself a website and post his work on it, then send clients
links to the website. Oh, and he should sign his work with a
Dennis Peterson wrote:
If you set up a file exchange server to allow uploads of these types
of files, all you've done is provide a back door for dangerous files which
could, if infected, impact systems outside yours. This could be considered
irresponsible behavior.
I didn't mean there would be a to
>
> Dennis Peterson wrote:
> > Probably not what you're looking for, but I've added your domain to my
> > list of blocked domains because you present yourself as someone who
> > doesn't understand the importance of this process, nor the nature of
> > infected payloads, regardless of the wrappin
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 11:52 -0600, Jason Byrns wrote:
> Dennis Peterson wrote:
> The options I see so far are:
>
> 1) Make them use hosting space, via HTTP/FTP, and don't allow emailing
> of banned file types at all.
> 2) Make them PGP encrypt their files.
> 3) Make them rename files.
>
> At th
Jason Byrns wrote:
> 3) Make them rename files.
>
> At the moment, it sounds to me like option #3 may be a reasonable one.
> Option #1 isn't bad, either. But if you still think my questions or
> choices are so bad that you have to blacklist our entire company, please
> at least explain what yo
Dennis Peterson wrote:
Probably not what you're looking for, but I've added your domain to my
list of blocked domains because you present yourself as someone who
doesn't understand the importance of this process, nor the nature of
infected payloads, regardless of the wrapping they come in. Passw
Jason Byrns wrote:
Trog wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 11:00 -0600, Jason Byrns wrote:
'Banned filename'? ClamAV doesn't do banned filenames.
So that's Amavis blocking banned file names, then?
I have no problems continuing to scan within archives, and I agree
that's how many viruses are now being d
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 09:57 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 09:39 AM 2/22/2005, you wrote:
Due to license issues with the original RAR3.0 unpacker one of our
developers is working on a new version written from scratch. It's
planned for 0.90.
secondly, is there a way to
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
No. That means password protected zips can be used for new viruses. My
solution is to force the vendors to put the files on a password
protected website where my folks can go grab them. Since we have to
reach out, there is little chance of automatic propagation
Yeah,
John Jolet wrote:
they could always rename the file and include instructions to put the
name back.
Thanks, but I already tried that! Unfortunately (or fortunately, not
sure which) it still sees the file as executable. In this case, I'm
guessing it refers to the MIME type or something like tha
On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 12:09 -0600, Jason Byrns wrote:
> Trog wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 11:00 -0600, Jason Byrns wrote:
> >
> > 'Banned filename'? ClamAV doesn't do banned filenames.
>
> So that's Amavis blocking banned file names, then?
>
Yup.
> I guess I'd rather not just stop banned f
they could always rename the file and include instructions to put the
name back. bear in mind, that microsoft has started making it difficult
to impossible to get at emails with those kinds of extensions in them
using microsoft's email products. Some versions require altering a
registry key to en
Trog wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 11:00 -0600, Jason Byrns wrote:
'Banned filename'? ClamAV doesn't do banned filenames.
So that's Amavis blocking banned file names, then?
I have no problems continuing to scan within archives, and I agree
that's how many viruses are now being distributed. But I c
On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 09:57 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> At 09:39 AM 2/22/2005, you wrote:
> >Due to license issues with the original RAR3.0 unpacker one of our
> >developers is working on a new version written from scratch. It's
> >planned for 0.90.
> secondly, is there a way to employ unrar
At 09:39 AM 2/22/2005, you wrote:
Due to license issues with the original RAR3.0 unpacker one of our
developers is working on a new version written from scratch. It's
planned for 0.90.
two questions: is there a rough timeline for release of 0.90? i.e. - a
month, six months, a year?
secondly, is t
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:30:42 +
Brian Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> code in clamAV please, in terms of whether it is still regarded as
> having memory leaks and causing instability? I know it doesn't deal
You have to test it empirically.
> with RAR 3.0 format files but I'm wondering i
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:22:19 +0100 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tomasz Kojm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:00:09 -0600
> Jason Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Good morning, everybody.
> >
> > Can anyone advise on disabling archive scanning for ClamAV? I've
> > researched an
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:00:09 -0600
Jason Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good morning, everybody.
>
> Can anyone advise on disabling archive scanning for ClamAV? I've
> researched and changed settings, but it doesn't seem to have changed
> anything. I want to continue scanning mail going t
On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 11:00 -0600, Jason Byrns wrote:
> After these changes, clamd.log does show "RECOMMENDED OPTIONS DISABLED"
> and "Archive support disabled" -- but if I email myself a zip file,
> containing an executable (or other banned filename), it is still
> rejected. Password protecte
23 matches
Mail list logo
