FW: Reviving an old idea about renaming forbidden extensions

Spicer, Kevin Kevin.Spicer at BMRB.CO.UK
Thu Jan 9 22:45:22 GMT 2003

> > It might be less irritating to users (and easier to 
> understand) to zip
> > the file rather than obfuscate the filename
> Suggesting to people to zip those files proved counterproductive. Most
> people were already sending self-extracting archives and some of these
> archives are automatically produced and distributed (software updates,
> patches, stuff like that). The 'zip solution' simply does not 
> apply in all
> cases. Suggesting it didn't get me anywhere.

Sorry I think you thought I meant users should zip the files.  I actually meant maybe MailScanner could have an option to zip offending files.  Maybe along the lines of the existing spam actions you could have a series of 'blocked attachement actions' eg. obfuscate-filename, zip, deliver, delete etc.  You'd probably want the ability to change this for different extensions so I guess this would be another field in filename.rules.conf?  Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

More information about the MailScanner mailing list