On Apr 8, 2015, at 12:23 PM, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
Alternately, reconsider blocking all executable attachments as a
site-wide policy. That will take care of a lot of problems, and is
becoming a fairly common policy.
I blocked a long list of dangerous attachment types at
I would say its better to strip unauthorized attachments instead of blocking
the whole message. A notice could be appended to message informing about the
stripped attach. This because some email clients/MTAs insert their own
attachments, and user cannot control this. The attachments in many
On Apr 9, 2015, at 03:16, Sebastian Nielsen sebast...@sebbe.eu wrote:
I would say its better to strip unauthorized attachments instead of blocking
the whole message.
Bouncing is much better because the sender will no nearly immediately that
their message failed and why.
A notice could
We’re not talking about rejecting all attachments, just executable ones.
Well, I’m not.
Thats a entirely different thing. I tought you were talking about any
potentially harmful attachment, eg blocking all attachments except a couple
of 100% safe ones like TXT, PNG and such.
Some providers
On 4/8/2015 1:00 PM, CSS wrote:
Google’s not feeding me much on doing this on a per-user basis…
I’d like to give users the option to block emails with certain attachments -
zip, exe, etc.
I know that server-wide the simplest option is header checks. I’m open to
adding another milter to
Google’s not feeding me much on doing this on a per-user basis…
I’d like to give users the option to block emails with certain attachments -
zip, exe, etc.
I know that server-wide the simplest option is header checks. I’m open to
adding another milter to my chain of milters. I already have
