FW: Reviving an old idea about renaming forbidden extensions

[Ben C. O. Grimm]

On 9 Jan 2003 23:47:13 +0100, "Spicer, Kevin" <Kevin.Spicer at BMRB.CO.UK>
wrote:

> > > 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.[..]

> Sorry I think you thought I meant users should zip the files.

Um, yes, I did ..

> 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?

Some people don't have any (de)compression software at all or don't
understand the file format at all ... some companies may not want to buy 50
WinZip licenses .... So this may prove to be just as arbitary as downright
refusing the file. Just passing the file along with a small change to the
filename and a short explanation may save cpu cycles (in the server and in
the recipient's wetware).

--
- Ben C. O. Grimm ----------------- Ben.Grimm at wirehub.net -
- Wirehub! Internet Engineering - http://www.wirehub.net/ -
- Private Ponderings ----------- http://www.bengrimm.net/ -
- Wirehub! Internet ----------- part of easynet Group plc -