ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

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

filmscanners: Filmscanners: OT: E-mail virus



I've noticed several e-mails about viruses on this e-mail list non of which
I seem to have received. On further investigation I have discovered that my
service provider Freeserve (cheap & almost cheerful) will not allow "dodgy"
attachments such as "*.exe" or "*.vbs" they just bounce. Harmless  files
such as jpg can be attached as normal. They do not advertise this point
probably for fear of a breach of security but the policy clearly exists.

eg. This is what happens if you attach <something>.vbs :

****************************************************
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. The following address(es) failed:

  steve@gccl.fsbusiness.co.uk:
    This message has been rejected because it has
an apparently executable attachment "SM1.VBS"
This is a virus prevention measure.
If you meant to send this file then please
package it up as a zip file and resend it.
****************************************************

This strikes me as rather sensible all round.

It's not in the interests of the users or service providers to have viruses
generating large volumes of traffic, using zip tends to make users think
twice about opening the file and will at least prevent automatic
propagation.

Much as I am against the idea of a "net nanny" this seems to be a very
sensible idea - forcing the use of a zip file will usually reduce the
bandwidth requirement too.

Perhaps we should all suggest to our service providers that they should
impliment a similar scheme.

Steve





 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.