Along the same lines as my argument a couple of weeks ago that the best
solution for "vulnerabilities" checking would be to allow either
declude.virus or declude.junkmail to handle them and allow the individual
administrator decide which handling best served the local interests, I'd
like to see a solution that allowed either approach. Seems to me there is a
continuum of choices: allow all --> allow all except a few --> allow none
except a few --> allow none. Few doesn't specifically have to be a small
number, just look at the list of extensions people are banning now. I can
see the value in all four choices according to circumstances. As a
"Business" administrator I will want a stricter rein on this than what I
expect an "ISP" administrator might, but I don't see the approaches as
contradictory as much as I see them as complementary.

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Tolmachoff
Sent: Wednesday, 04 December 2002 10:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.Virus] Ban/Allow extensions

For the benefit of all, I would like to see more responses to this post, as
I created it to create a discussion of what is the desired course of action.

John Tolmachoff MCSE, CSSA
IT Manager, Network Engineer
RelianceSoft, Inc.
Fullerton, CA  92835
www.reliancesoft.com


---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
(http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.Virus mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type "unsubscribe Declude.Virus".    The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.Virus mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type "unsubscribe Declude.Virus".    The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.

Reply via email to