mån 2012-04-16 klockan 12:34 -0300 skrev Marcus Kool: > However, looking at the RFC where the example uses "asp, bat, exe, com, ole" > it seems that the authors of the RFC were thinking of a URL-based "suffix", > not content-type.
To me it indicates the set of people who worked on this part of the spec thought more in files on a harddrive than URLs. Most likely AV scanning people dealing with local file scanning. There you normally deal with file extensions in this kind of processing conditions. Regards Henrik
