On 19 February 2009 c. 10:09:32 Shagbag OpenBSD wrote:
Did anyone else read the article
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/foobar/6229#compact ?
Does anyone have a view on it (other than the obvious ones: security
is a process not a product and don't save-and-open unfamiliar e-mail
attachments)?
Fix
Paul de Weerd wrote:
... ((SMTP != NFS) (HTTP == NFS)) ?
This: ( SMTP != ( NFS || AFS || SMB || DAVFS ) )
E-mail may not be an acceptable surrogate for a networked filesystem,
but you sure can easily transfer files with it.
It's a kludge that has started to become permanent as people start
Matthias Kilian wrote:
To add to this: there were times when no internet existed, and yet
people did exchange files via ...
FTP, UUCP, and Usenet (albeit inefficiently)
In early 1995, WWW traffic passed ftp-data in regards to both packet
count and byte count.
I suppose sometime soon, if we
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 12:36:12PM +0200, Lars Nood??n wrote:
| Paul de Weerd wrote:
| ... ((SMTP != NFS) (HTTP == NFS)) ?
|
| This: ( SMTP != ( NFS || AFS || SMB || DAVFS ) )
The point was that you were saying that SMTP was not suitable for
networked file storage but HTTP is. Both systems are
2009/2/20 Matthias Kilian k...@outback.escape.de:
To add to this: there were times when no internet existed, and yet
people did exchange files via email or news.
WWW != Internet
Ok, granted, some people do not call the early UUCP networks that
email and Usenet already existed on the Internet.
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 5:36 AM, Lars Noodin larsnoo...@openoffice.org
wrote:
No. It's always been wrong. Why it's become common to do so would be
an interesting study. But the bottom line is that, among other
problems, it wastes space, bandwidth and makes version tracking
difficult.
Yeah,
On Feb 19, 2009, at 6:25 AM, Lars Noodin wrote:
KammyDoe wrote:
You've already said what needs to be said, don't save-and-open email
attachments...
Actually there are a lot of milters that can remove all the
attachments
for you automatically.
Complex ones like procmail can even autorespond
Navan Carson wrote:
... The best way to accomplish what you seem to want, is to deny the
message during the SMTP dialog. That way you don't create another
tool for the Spammers.
Of course that's best, but it also presumes a competent mail
administrator. Rare as hen's teeth these days,
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Lars Noodin larsnoo...@openoffice.org
wrote:
Navan Carson wrote:
... The best way to accomplish what you seem to want, is to deny the
message during the SMTP dialog. That way you don't create another
tool for the Spammers.
Of course that's best, but it also
(private) HKS wrote:
Block spam at the dialog level if possible. If it gets through, either
dump it to /dev/null or report it to Spamcop and then dump it to
/dev/null.
Which is fine for spam. For mail from real accounts that have owners
stupid enough to send a binary attachment, there are
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 06:37:57PM +0200, Lars Nood??n wrote:
| (private) HKS wrote:
|
| Block spam at the dialog level if possible. If it gets through, either
| dump it to /dev/null or report it to Spamcop and then dump it to
| /dev/null.
|
| Which is fine for spam. For mail from real
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 09:28:50PM +0100, Paul de Weerd wrote:
Are you actually insane ?
beeing at @openoffice.org is a clear sign of beeing insane or weird
to some level. No pun intended, Really.
E-mail may not be an acceptable surrogate for a networked filesystem,
but you sure can easily
On Feb 20, 2009, at 8:37 AM, Lars Noodin wrote:
E-Mail is not an acceptable surrogate for a networked filesystem.
Regards
-Lars
All right, I've had enough of your tilting at windmills. This battle
has been fought and lost already. E-mail is the de facto way to
collaborate, and that
Cheers to that and well said!
Jim
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Brian Keefer ch...@smtps.net wrote:
On Feb 20, 2009, at 8:37 AM, Lars Noodin wrote:
E-Mail is not an acceptable surrogate for a networked filesystem.
Regards
-Lars
All right, I've had enough of your tilting at
You've already said what needs to be said, don't save-and-open email
attachments, even if you know and trust the sender, etc.
It's a pretty interesting article. The autostart file he mentions does
seem to be a bit inviting.
Mind you, it's not really hard to check the contents of the autostart
KammyDoe wrote:
You've already said what needs to be said, don't save-and-open email
attachments...
Actually there are a lot of milters that can remove all the attachments
for you automatically.
Complex ones like procmail can even autorespond to dipshits who are dumb
enough or rude enough to
Complex ones like procmail can even autorespond to dipshits who are
dumb enough or rude enough to send files as attachments.
I wouldn't say it were dumb or rude to send files as attachments, just
to be wary of them. Unless you can verify what it is, then just don't
open it, really.
Of
I agree that e-mail should be to exclusively used to write plain text,
full stop. Nobody sends VHS cassettes or DVDs attached to post
letters. But I would be making a lot of people upset by calling them
dumb automatically any time I get 1MB file e-mail file from them...
unfortunately this is a
Pau wrote:
I agree that e-mail should be to exclusively used to write plain text,
full stop. Nobody sends VHS cassettes or DVDs attached to post
letters. But I would be making a lot of people upset by calling them
dumb automatically any time I get 1MB file e-mail file from them...
Which is
I don't think the average obsd user clicks randomly or executes
blindly script files attached to e-mails.
I fully agree with you there. I think the most vulnerable people will be
the mass influx of Ubuntu users that the last year or two has seen. Mind
you, a lot of them would have migrated
Did anyone else read the article
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/foobar/6229#compact ?
Does anyone have a view on it (other than the obvious ones: security is a
process not a product and don't save-and-open unfamiliar e-mail
attachments)?
P.S. have I posted this in the right list (I'm still new to
21 matches
Mail list logo
