[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Anyone else notice that Swen is slowing down?

On Tuesday 30 September 2003 19:53, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> on Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 12:11:16PM -0400, Mike Mueller 
(linux-support@earthlink.net) wrote:
> > On Tuesday 30 September 2003 02:05, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > > Seems
> > > like about the only way we're going to get a reasonable handle on this
> > > barring ISPs refusing to carry executables in email format.
> >
> > Hear! Hear!  No more attachments - period.  I'll settle for elimination
> > of any known sort of executable though.
> No.
> Specifically:  executables.  Various other mail 'sploits -- there are
> some header buffer overflows, IIRC affecting LookOut -- exist and should
> be filtered as well.  But specifically, AUPs against transmission of
> executable content, and concomittant filtering, would serve a useful
> purpose.  There are opaque formats, from zip to tarball to encrypted
> payloads, which can be used by those sufficiently clueful to handle the
> task appropriately.
> MIME attachments of themselves serve many useful functions.  There's an
> awful lot of baby in that bathwater.  Starting with the signature on
> this message.

The thing I find fascinating is that if you imagine all email attachments 
eliminated indiscriminately, there is always a work-around using currently 
available techniques.  It seems that the safest form of information push is  
unformatted text.  If a richer set of information is needed then pull 
techniques are available.  Fixing bad stuff from pull-sources would be easier 
that stopping bad stuff from push sources.  The sacrifice is convenience - or 
is it?  Less Swen-like items in my mailbox would be convenient.
Mike Mueller
324881 (08/20/2003)
Make clockwise circles with your right foot. 
Now use your right hand to draw the number "6" in the air.

Reply to: