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
> > 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.
> 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.
Make clockwise circles with your right foot.
Now use your right hand to draw the number "6" in the air.