>>
>> They have the choice not to sign up, and read the FD archives
instead.
>> If you can't deal with the noise/virii/ect/ect that comes with an
>> unmoderated list, unsubscribe right now!
>>
>You're the second person that has suggested this. I'm amazed by the
>insensitivity. If the shoe was o
Michael Gale wrote>>
>I like how you are able to reply with such an educated answer. Of course
>you are right, I only wish more people were able to express them selves
>with such grace and intelligence as you are able to do.
I don't deny that my reply was blunt and maybe lacking in some area'
Michael Gale wrote:
...
of all I host my own domain which includes my own web, mail and ftp
servers.
...
# zgrep ask maillog.*
maillog.0.gz:Apr 3 03:09:21 it97 postfix/cleanup[19431]: A8C71688:
reject: header Content-Type:
application/octet-stream;??name="your_archive.pif" from
NETSYS.COM[1
Michael Gale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I have read all the replies below I feel I should respond. First
> of all I host my own domain which includes my own web, mail and ftp
> servers.
<>
Dude -- this was done-to-death less than a fortnight ago when another
subscriber made similar "
gt; -Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael
> Gale Sent: Saturday, 3 April 2004 9:29 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] FD should block attachments
>
>
> Hello,
>
> As I h
gt; -Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael
> Gale Sent: Saturday, 3 April 2004 9:29 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] FD should block attachments
>
>
> Hello,
>
> As I h
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 16:29:16 -0700, Michael Gale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The point -- how many people are on this list ? Lets say 10,000 -- some
> one sends a e-mail to the list containing a 1MB attachment. We just
> wasted / costs lists.netsys.com 10GB of transfer. Now lets those 10,000
> lis
aturday, 3 April 2004 9:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] FD should block attachments
Hello,
As I have read all the replies below I feel I should respond. First
of all I host my own domain which includes my own web, mail and ftp
servers.
At the moment my mail serve
Hello,
As I have read all the replies below I feel I should respond. First
of all I host my own domain which includes my own web, mail and ftp
servers.
At the moment my mail server is a postfix server with amavisd-new,
clamAV and bogofilter.
So all attachments get filtered - so client s
Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On Saturday, April 3, 2004 2:30 AM +0200 Niek Baakman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
They have the choice not to sign up, and read the FD archives instead.
If you can't deal with the noise/virii/ect/ect that comes with an
unmoderated list, unsubscribe right now!
You're the seco
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 09:41:01AM -0600, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> --On Friday, April 02, 2004 01:16:24 AM -0500 Poof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Yeah... I've got Dialup and don't see a problem with the attachments.
> >
> >Heck. Emailing it to everybody rather than hosting the file(s) is bette
Personally... I do think that attachments shouldn't be blocked. I'm on dialup
myself and have no problem with them... I joined this list knowing that
there'd be attachments and for a list of this volume (Not much usually) it's
not a big deal.
If you want a list that doesn't give attachments joi
> I think FD should change their policy and block all attachments, except
> maybe plain text file's.
i second this if someone wants to send binary data / attachment use BHX or UUE or XXE
encoding
copied in the main message... like this text
> Most people on this list are smart enough that ex
--On Saturday, April 3, 2004 2:30 AM +0200 Niek Baakman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
They have the choice not to sign up, and read the FD archives instead.
If you can't deal with the noise/virii/ect/ect that comes with an
unmoderated list, unsubscribe right now!
You're the second person that has sug
At 06:30 PM 4/2/2004, Niek Baakman said:
>They have the choice not to sign up, and read the FD archives instead.
>If you can't deal with the noise/virii/ect/ect that comes with an
>unmoderated list, unsubscribe right now!
Perhaps they do not want to wait to read new messages. This is a mailing
l
Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On Friday, April 02, 2004 01:16:24 AM -0500 Poof
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yeah... I've got Dialup and don't see a problem with the attachments.
Heck. Emailing it to everybody rather than hosting the file(s) is better
for me as I dislike hosting files on my own webspace.
I found the irony of the following too rich to pass up, given the
subject matter of this thread :-/
/* snip */
Received: from INET-VRS-02.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.8.110])
by +mail2.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1041);
Fri, 2 Apr 2004 09:53:01 -0800
Received: fr
>> Now someone go write a GPL WinSSHD so that they'll be able to *receive*
the miserable ph1l3z they'll spew back and forth 8-)
The sshd in the openssh port for windows from http://lexa.mckenna.edu/sshwindows/
works.
___
Full-Disclosure - We belie
> This will be more useful once there's a way to do all of the following:
>
> 1) Upload the file to a webserver (which Joe User often doesn't have)
Granted, some people don't have good access to web hosting resources.
> 2) Set permissions on the file so only the recipients can get it.
This is
--On Friday, April 02, 2004 01:27:19 PM -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) Upload the file to a webserver (which Joe User often doesn't have)
2) Set permissions on the file so only the recipients can get it.
3) Figure out the resulting URL for inclusion in the mail.
4) Deal with removing the file af
First, Aunt Tillie ought not to be sending files around the Internet,
IMHO. But we've already lost *that* battle, so ...
Basically, attachments in SMTP sux0r. File Transfer Protocol (which no
one should use since it's insecure) was designed for ... transferring
files. SMTP was not - go ask Eric
> attachments, html, silly corporate signatures, and what-not stripped
^^
I wasn't talking about that kind of signature. I was talking about
PGP/SMIME detached signatures. (eg, exist in attachments).
tim
_
Either way you look at this somebody will bitch.
1) The people that don't want to take the time to download attachments or filter their
own mail.
2) The people who have to host the attachments on their own servers and use their own
bandwidth.
So here's my question to anyone who has done number
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 08:27:18 PST, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I have to agree here. There are some who would say that email was never
> intended as a means to transfer files. It is a very impolite way of
> getting a group of people a file. Sending a link, is much more
> considerate to the
> Did you ever consider that people in some parts of the world pay by the
> byte or by the time they're online, and attachments, especially large ones
> *and* html email cost them money personally?
I have to agree here. There are some who would say that email was never
intended as a means to tr
On Friday 02 April 2004 10:27, Tim wrote:
> > Did you ever consider that people in some parts of the world pay
> > by the byte or by the time they're online, and attachments,
> > especially large ones *and* html email cost them money
> > personally?
>
> I have to agree here. There are some who wou
>> Yeah... I've got Dialup and don't see a problem with the attachments.
>>
>> Heck. Emailing it to everybody rather than hosting the file(s) is
better
>> for me as I dislike hosting files on my own webspace.
>>
>How considerate of you.
>
>Did you ever consider that people in some parts of the worl
--On Friday, April 02, 2004 01:16:24 AM -0500 Poof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Yeah... I've got Dialup and don't see a problem with the attachments.
Heck. Emailing it to everybody rather than hosting the file(s) is better
for me as I dislike hosting files on my own webspace.
How considerate of yo
Hello,
Being a member of this I do not mind the carrying on of list
members. I usually enjoy reading the banter and I do not care about the
"noise" ratio.
What is annoying is the amount of viruses or waste of my bandwidth
attachments that come from this list.
I think FD should change the
losure-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Zach Forsyth
> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 12:33 AM
> To: Michael Gale; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] FD should block attachments
>
> How much precious bandwidth is wasted by FD attachements exactly?
> Per month?
> Per
they shouldn't.
z
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Gale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, 2 April 2004 7:23 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Full-Disclosure] FD should block attachments
>
> Hello,
>
> Being a member of this I do not
Hello,
Being a member of this I do not mind the carrying on of list
members. I usually enjoy reading the banter and I do not care about the
"noise" ratio.
What is annoying is the amount of viruses or waste of my bandwidth
attachments that come from this list.
I think FD should change the
32 matches
Mail list logo
