On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 23:57:53 -0500 (EST), you wrote:
1. Should the IETF elist messages be scanned for viruses?
This would require that appropriate virus detection software exist in
the environment that the mail list is operated.
Are you aware of eg an Acorn Archimedes virus scanner that runs
Vernon, I fully agree with you: there is no reason to get multipart
messages in technical discussion mailing lists. Even if your solution
seems drastic this is the way we should go.
Thanks!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Francis D
upont typed:
Vernon, I fully agree with you: there is no reason to get multipart
messages in technical discussion mailing lists. Even if your solution
seems drastic this is the way we should go.
i'd prefer to see us develop a more 21st century
"James" == James M Galvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
James On the other hand, I think it's a feature to be able to send documents
James (even text-based documents) as attachments as opposed to inline and I
James further consider it a feature that Internet Draft announcements and RFC
fwiw, ietf+censored currently has the following set of filters in taboo_body:
/^Antigen for Exchange found/
/^Virus Notification: A virus has been detected/
/^Antivirus Utility for Exchange found .* infected/
/^Content-Type: application\/x-msdownload/i
the last one is ONLY included because I
Please point to an example of a useful multipart message seen in
this list or that might someday be useful in this mailing list.
I have sent to wg lists a multipart containing a preamble and an
internet-draft or similar file. This makes it easy for recipients to
save the draft as-is.
This distinction between filtering content and virus scanning is
confusing because they are not the same thing.
To choose to filter content (restrict it to text/plain or some other
limited set) would be changing the policy of this elist. That is more
than an operational decision and probably
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, James M Galvin wrote:
I think this discussion needs to separate at least two distinct issues.
1. Should the IETF elist messages be scanned for viruses?
2. Should the IETF elist restrict the type of content that can be
submitted?
Bear this in mind when you say that
The fact that very few can/do create/verify multipart/signed email is
mostly a statement on the extremely sad state of security on the
Internet; to which I guess I'm contributing by not signing my mail :-(
The use of authenticating tehcnology (even if it is just to
authenticate that two
second, if someone must send an executable attachment , then we have a
signing server that signs the attachment as trustworthy
and how, and using what criteria, would the signing server evaluate
the trustworthiness of the attachment?
e.g. I might consider an attachment that installed NetBSD
I am looking for a few leading Internet technical experts to contribute
their ideas for an online conference on the *use* of the Internet by the
next White House. What advancing Internet standards and tools should be
considered? What would you do if you were in charge? What could the White
From: Jon Crowcroft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
i'd prefer to see us develop a more 21st century solution
first, we should register mime types that we DO allow on a list
second, if someone must send an executable attachment , then we have a
signing server that signs the attachment as trustworthy -
some of the folks on this list aren't american or US citezens and
might think that this is a bit presumptious.but here goes:-
the first thing the white house should do is educate its customers and
organise voting properly
the next thing it should do is apply for membership of the European
From: "Matt Crawford" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please point to an example of a useful multipart message seen in
this list or that might someday be useful in this mailing list.
I have sent to wg lists a multipart containing a preamble and an
internet-draft or similar file. This makes it easy
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jon Crowcroft writes:
some of the folks on this list aren't american or US citezens and
might think that this is a bit presumptious.but here goes:-
I think you're over-assuming -- from looking at the Web site, I did not
get the impression that this was in any
the next thing it should do is apply for membership of the European
Union
I'm unclear on this concept. Wouldn't it rather make a mockery
of the EU (or at least of the name) if countries from outside Europe start
joining up?
Sort of like admitting Japan into NATO.
RGF
Robert G. Ferrell,
following that, the use of other languages might be a considerably
benefit - e.g. spanish, chinese and hopi spring to mind
Add Dineh (Navaho), don't want to inflame the Joint-Use Area conflict
any further, though Hopi do go Republican (those who "vote"), unlike
the majority of Dinetah and
Michael Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sending of IDs to the WG lists is a terrible practice.
Sending short IDs to WG lists or longer IDs in parts as the WG goes over
them results, in my experience, in more detailed and easier to follow
comments than pointers. YMMV. It's not
On Thu, 04 Jan 2001 09:40:41 MST, Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
It would be more of a 21st century something to have the IETF join
Microsoft in equating authentication (e.g. signing) with authorization
(e.g. who gets to run programs on your computers). However, "solution"
is not
19 matches
Mail list logo
