Long attachement file-names.

2002-12-27 Thread Ulrich Eckhardt
Hi, today i had received a suspicious e-mail with an attachement (using Mozilla 1.2.1). The filename is displayed as readme.xls (and 3 dots wich can be easily overlooked). After having a closer look in the headers, the full name of this attachement is readme.xls.scr . I think it would be better

Re: Long attachement file-names.

2002-12-27 Thread Ben Bucksch
Ulrich Eckhardt wrote: The filename is displayed as readme.xls (and 3 dots wich can be easily overlooked). After having a closer look in the headers, the full name of this attachement is readme.xls.scr . Good point, please file a bug (and cc me (remove ".news)). Ben

Re: Long attachement file-names.

2002-12-27 Thread Nelson B. Bolyard
Ulrich Eckhardt wrote: > > Hi, > > today i had received a suspicious e-mail with an attachement > (using Mozilla 1.2.1). > > The filename is displayed as readme.xls (and 3 dots wich can > be easily overlooked). After having a closer look in the headers, > the full name of this attachement is rea

Re: Long attachement file-names.

2002-12-27 Thread Ben Bucksch
Nelson B. Bolyard wrote: Decisions about whether a file is "safe" for some purpose should be made based on the MIME content type, not the file name or "extension". Tell that MS Windows :-(. Ben

Re: Long attachement file-names.

2002-12-27 Thread michael lefevre
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nelson B. Bolyard wrote: > Ulrich Eckhardt wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> today i had received a suspicious e-mail with an attachement >> (using Mozilla 1.2.1). >> >> The filename is displayed as readme.xls (and 3 dots wich can >> be easily overlooked). After having a clo

Re: Long attachement file-names.

2002-12-27 Thread Grey Hodge / jesus X
On 12/27/2002 9:18 PM Nelson B. Bolyard cranked up the brainbox and said: > Decisions about whether a file is "safe" for some purpose should be made > based on the MIME content type, not the file name or "extension". > mozilla should always make the MIME content type easily accessible. Agreed, t

Re: Long attachement file-names.

2002-12-28 Thread Eric
On 28-12-2002 7:30, Grey Hodge / jesus X wrote : > On 12/27/2002 9:18 PM Nelson B. Bolyard cranked up the brainbox and said: > >>Decisions about whether a file is "safe" for some purpose should be made >>based on the MIME content type, not the file name or "extension". >>mozilla should always ma

Re: Long attachement file-names.

2002-12-30 Thread Nelson B. Bolyard
Ben Bucksch wrote: > > Nelson B. Bolyard wrote: > > >Decisions about whether a file is "safe" for some purpose should be made > >based on the MIME content type, not the file name or "extension". > > > Tell that MS Windows :-(. Netscape communicator was able to ignore the file name extension and

Re: Long attachement file-names.

2002-12-30 Thread Nelson B. Bolyard
michael lefevre wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nelson B. Bolyard wrote: > > Decisions about whether a file is "safe" for some purpose should be made > > based on the MIME content type, not the file name or "extension". > > mozilla should always make the MIME content type easily access

Re: Long attachement file-names.

2002-12-30 Thread michael lefevre
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nelson B. Bolyard wrote: > Grey Hodge / jesus X wrote: >> >> On 12/27/2002 9:18 PM Nelson B. Bolyard cranked up the brainbox and said: >> > Decisions about whether a file is "safe" for some purpose should be made >> > based on the MIME content type, not the file nam

Re: Long attachement file-names.

2002-12-30 Thread Grey Hodge / jesus X
On 12/30/2002 7:00 PM Nelson B. Bolyard cranked up the brainbox and said: > Grey Hodge / jesus X wrote: > Fake/alter? The MIME content type is, by definition, the correct type that > the browser should honor. It is possible for the MIME content type to > differ from Windows association with the