filename rules questioned

[Jeff A. Earickson]

Steve,

   FYI, we use all of the filename.rules.conf rules except for:

deny  \.[a-z][a-z0-9]{2,3}\s*\.[a-z0-9]{3}$

which I comment out.  With this rule, I get complaints about people
who have something.something.something style documents being rejected.
The hassle to these people isn't worth it, so I disable this rule.

--- Jeff Earickson
    Colby College

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Steve Campbell wrote:

> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 07:15:03 -0400
> From: Steve Campbell <steve at AVALON.DARTMOUTH.EDU>
> Reply-To: MailScanner mailing list <MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
> To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: filename rules questioned
>
> Folks,
>
> We occasionally get complaints from users about harmless enclosures in email
> they send or receive being deleted by MailScanner's filename.rules.conf
> mechanism. Especially in a college environment like ours, we need to weigh the
> risk of allowing enclosures through against the likelihood of false positives
> and the resulting interference with legitimate enclosures.
>
> So my question is, is there any documented (not just anecdotal) evidence to
> justify the blocking of enclosures with certain filenames as specified by
> filename.rules.conf?
>
> Steve Campbell
> Dartmouth College
> Hanover, NH US
>