Stuart Longland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Simon Stelling wrote: > > Chris Gianelloni wrote: > >>Filtering the lists leads to a slippery slope. What happens when > >>you start getting false positives? > > > > True, but why not filtering binary attachments? *If* you have to > > send an attachment to these lists, it should either be plain text or > > your gpg-signature. > > Why allow attachments at all? Most of us, if we have something to > share, can stick it up on a little bit of webspace for people to > download at their leisure.
Does anyone else appreciate the irony of an email with multiple attachments which condemns the use of attachments? It's a bit disconcerting to get spam and virii on a mailing list, but I agree with Chris. In three posts, we went from "filter viruses" to "BAN ALL TEH ATTACHMENTS". I'd rather filter on my end, anyhow. If I screw up and start deleting messages that ought not be deleted, then I get pissed, learn something, and fix myself. If somebody else screws up and deletes/munges messages that ought not be deleted or munged, all I can do is get pissed. I'm attaching my PGP sig. I hope that's alright with everybody. :-P -- Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of "human rights"? Kusanagi: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action. -- "Ghost in the Shell", Shirow Masamune
pgpphAIJCc8u3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
