Hi, Rob, 2007/10/19, Rob Sterenborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Luis Hernán Otegui wrote: > > Anyway, the Faculty I work for tries to keep the e-mail system only > > for research purposes, and mostly students and (sadly) technicians > > tend to goof around with mail. Bandwidth isn't cheap here, so they > > decided to straightly cut those extensions. Remember, the customer is > > always right... > > If you'd just block out the extensions and I were a student in your faculty > and wanted to send an MP3 or something, then I'd just goof a bit more and > rename a .mp3 to a .txt, just because I can get around that. That's what I > think (most) students do if they're clever enough. > Of course blocking extensions is cheap in CPU/mem resources but IMHO it's not > the way to go. Inspecting the attachments checking for filetypes to block is > more intensive but also much much harder to omit. Of course, you can still > block these extensions... :-) > > > Rob > > Well, this is getting a little bit off topic, but I guess it's worth it, since I'm learning from others practices... Anyway, I feel like I've "misexpressed" myself. When I wrote "we block these extensions", what I meant was that we do perform content scanning and deny those file types. If we wouldn`t do it, as you said, sending mp3s would be as easy as to enclose them inside a .rar, .zip., .cab, .ace, or whatever compressed file you'd like.
Luis -- ------------------------------------------------- GNU-GPL: "May The Source Be With You... Linux Registered User #448382. When I grow up, I wanna be like Theo... -------------------------------------------------
