You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by OpenMacNews <op...@gmail.com> on 2006/02/24 01:14:05 UTC
attachment policy?
hi all,
question: what's this list's policy for sending attachments to the list ?
i'm noticing, e.g., *.pl scripts as attachments ... rather than links to
posts at code-paste sites.
iiuc, in general attachments are 'bad form', but given that the list-mgr
is NOT apparently blocking them , it thought i'd ask ...
thanks!
richard
--
/"\
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
X against HTML email, vCards
/ \ & micro$oft attachments
Re: attachment policy?
Posted by mouss <us...@free.fr>.
OpenMacNews a écrit :
> sending attachments to lists wins nothing that can't be readily replaced
> with post-sites, costs bandwidth/cpu @ the server, runs counter to
> 'typical' list rules/netiquette around the web.
there is one thing that attachments win: self contained archives. It may
be frustrating to search the archive, to find the solution, but it
refers to an external site, to go there, but the page is no more
available...
>
> but, i'm clearly in the minority here, so i guess y'all should feel free
> to send whatever you like to the list :-)
>
I don't remember sending an attachment. and in the perl case, I can just
copy/paste and "inline" it. But many people prefer them as attachments
to do a "Save As" quickly. for forwarded spam/ham, attachments are
necessary (if included in mail) as some MUAs break normal text.
but again, I differentiate between safe attachments and unsafe ones.
There is no reason to send a .pif or .vbs (though I've seen this)...
etc. but a .txt/.pl/.sh/.diff, ... etc are ok unless your MUA executes
them automatically (which then means an unsafe configuration anyway).
Re: attachment policy?
Posted by OpenMacNews <op...@gmail.com>.
> bounce? aheh? bounce to whom? if you bounce to the list, you'll be
> unsubscribed. if you bounce to the original sender, you'll get block
> listed, may be even bombed, hated, and your photos will be sent to fox
> news :).
>
i said discard/bounce ...
i bounce to people i consider friendly, to let them know i'm not
accepting attachments.
assuming i've config'd my server(s) correctly, i don't bounce to this
list. i discard the messages out of hand.
> up so far, I didn't see a .vbs or a .pif. calling a .pl or an rfc822
> attachment a risk is at least an over statement. It's just text. I know
> of no MUA that will execute a .pl or an rfc822 attachment!
>
> you can discard it. but please no bounce.
sending attachments to lists wins nothing that can't be readily replaced
with post-sites, costs bandwidth/cpu @ the server, runs counter to
'typical' list rules/netiquette around the web.
but, i'm clearly in the minority here, so i guess y'all should feel free
to send whatever you like to the list :-)
> Anyway, by subscribing to an open mailing list, you accept that you'll
> get mail from that list.
LIST mail, yes. attachments, no.
but, you're absolutely right -- i can unsubscribe.
--
/"\
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
X against HTML email, vCards
/ \ & micro$oft attachments
[GPG] OpenMacNews at gmail dot com
fingerprint: 50C9 1C46 2F8F DE42 2EDB D460 95F7 DDBD 3671 08C6
Re: attachment policy?
Posted by mouss <us...@free.fr>.
OpenMacNews a écrit :
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>>OpenMacNews wrote:
>>
>>>hi theo,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 04:14:05PM -0800, OpenMacNews wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>question: what's this list's policy for sending attachments to the list ?
>>>>>
>>>>>i'm noticing, e.g., *.pl scripts as attachments ... rather than links to
>>>>>posts at code-paste sites.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't think we have a policy about it specifically. Generally speaking
>>>>though, it's good netiquette to do as you said: put your large attachments
>>>>up on a website somewhere and send a link to it instead of sending that
>>>>attachment to everyone.
>>>>
>>>
>>>thx for the clarify.
>>>
>>>if there's *any* list(s) that i'd, personally, rather NOT see sending
>>>out attachments, it' *spamassassin* & *clamav*.
>>>
>>>any chance of getting attachments simply blocked here? or at least
>>>discussed?
>>>
>>
>>Personally.. If there's any list I *DO* want people sending attachments
>>it is this list.
>>
>>I would VERY strongly oppose any measure to block attachments on this list.
>>
>>There are only two reasonable ways to post sample spams for general list
>>analysis.
>>
>>1) put them on a website and post a link... best for large spam, but not
>>everyone has this option.
>>2) post them as an attachment.
>>
>>In-line quote of spam posted to the list is generally not acceptable, as
>>the sending MUA modifies the content and this inhibits useful analysis.
>>
>>Search the list archives for how many times people have had to be told
>>to re-post with the full spam as an attachment instead of an inline
>>quote in the body.
>>
>>
>
>
> i hear your point(s). AND i'm well aware of how many attachments are
> sent to this list ... don't need to search the archives.
>
> hence my point/question.
>
> a potentially-executable attachment ESPECIALLY from a spam/virus-centric
> list is not something i'm terribly thrilled about. especially to a USER
> list ... otoh, if the DEVs want to receive/analyse, then, imho, please
> feel free to "share amongst yourselves" :-)
>
> bottom line? i don't trust attachments from this list. yes, i know,
> that's my choice.
>
> in the end, i'll simply continue to discard/bounce messages with
> attachments.
bounce? aheh? bounce to whom? if you bounce to the list, you'll be
unsubscribed. if you bounce to the original sender, you'll get block
listed, may be even bombed, hated, and your photos will be sent to fox
news :).
up so far, I didn't see a .vbs or a .pif. calling a .pl or an rfc822
attachment a risk is at least an over statement. It's just text. I know
of no MUA that will execute a .pl or an rfc822 attachment!
Anyway, by subscribing to an open mailing list, you accept that you'll
get mail from that list. you can discard it. but please no bounce.
Re: attachment policy?
Posted by Matt Kettler <mk...@comcast.net>.
OpenMacNews wrote:
>
> i hear your point(s). AND i'm well aware of how many attachments are
> sent to this list ... don't need to search the archives.
>
> hence my point/question.
>
> a potentially-executable attachment ESPECIALLY from a spam/virus-centric
> list is not something i'm terribly thrilled about.
I've never seen an attachment on this list that was executable except a
perl script. I can't speak for the clamav list.
That said, if you're only concerned about potentially-executable
attachments, why don't you just filter/trash/whatever those? Trashing
entire mails that contain attachments, simply because they contain
attachments, seems a lot like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
There's really nice tools out there that allow you to filter by regex of
the filename, so you can block by extension, or will use the "file"
utility to attempt to determine the real type. Say for example..
MailScanner, but there's a half-dozen other tools that do this.
MailScanner can even rip off the attachments while letting the main body
of the message go, replacing the ripped attachment with a text-file
notice about why.
Re: attachment policy?
Posted by OpenMacNews <op...@gmail.com>.
Matt Kettler wrote:
> OpenMacNews wrote:
>> hi theo,
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 04:14:05PM -0800, OpenMacNews wrote:
>>>
>>>> question: what's this list's policy for sending attachments to the list ?
>>>>
>>>> i'm noticing, e.g., *.pl scripts as attachments ... rather than links to
>>>> posts at code-paste sites.
>>>>
>>> I don't think we have a policy about it specifically. Generally speaking
>>> though, it's good netiquette to do as you said: put your large attachments
>>> up on a website somewhere and send a link to it instead of sending that
>>> attachment to everyone.
>>>
>> thx for the clarify.
>>
>> if there's *any* list(s) that i'd, personally, rather NOT see sending
>> out attachments, it' *spamassassin* & *clamav*.
>>
>> any chance of getting attachments simply blocked here? or at least
>> discussed?
>>
> Personally.. If there's any list I *DO* want people sending attachments
> it is this list.
>
> I would VERY strongly oppose any measure to block attachments on this list.
>
> There are only two reasonable ways to post sample spams for general list
> analysis.
>
> 1) put them on a website and post a link... best for large spam, but not
> everyone has this option.
> 2) post them as an attachment.
>
> In-line quote of spam posted to the list is generally not acceptable, as
> the sending MUA modifies the content and this inhibits useful analysis.
>
> Search the list archives for how many times people have had to be told
> to re-post with the full spam as an attachment instead of an inline
> quote in the body.
>
>
i hear your point(s). AND i'm well aware of how many attachments are
sent to this list ... don't need to search the archives.
hence my point/question.
a potentially-executable attachment ESPECIALLY from a spam/virus-centric
list is not something i'm terribly thrilled about. especially to a USER
list ... otoh, if the DEVs want to receive/analyse, then, imho, please
feel free to "share amongst yourselves" :-)
bottom line? i don't trust attachments from this list. yes, i know,
that's my choice.
in the end, i'll simply continue to discard/bounce messages with
attachments.
just my $0.02, but i think it's unfortunate that there's no choice in
the matter ...
as for:
> but not everyone has this option
i can only assume that means not everyone can post an EXECUTABLE file --
which, again, i'd propose should NOT be sent to the LIST in the 1st
place ... cuz there are simply scads of code-paste sites that are free,
can be used anonymously, and are accessible to any/all with a browser.
it's done ALL THE TIME on #irc, e.g.
--
/"\
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
X against HTML email, vCards
/ \ & micro$oft attachments
[GPG] OpenMacNews at gmail dot com
fingerprint: 50C9 1C46 2F8F DE42 2EDB D460 95F7 DDBD 3671 08C6
Re: attachment policy?
Posted by Matt Kettler <mk...@comcast.net>.
OpenMacNews wrote:
> hi theo,
>
>
>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 04:14:05PM -0800, OpenMacNews wrote:
>>
>>> question: what's this list's policy for sending attachments to the list ?
>>>
>>> i'm noticing, e.g., *.pl scripts as attachments ... rather than links to
>>> posts at code-paste sites.
>>>
>> I don't think we have a policy about it specifically. Generally speaking
>> though, it's good netiquette to do as you said: put your large attachments
>> up on a website somewhere and send a link to it instead of sending that
>> attachment to everyone.
>>
>
> thx for the clarify.
>
> if there's *any* list(s) that i'd, personally, rather NOT see sending
> out attachments, it' *spamassassin* & *clamav*.
>
> any chance of getting attachments simply blocked here? or at least
> discussed?
>
Personally.. If there's any list I *DO* want people sending attachments
it is this list.
I would VERY strongly oppose any measure to block attachments on this list.
There are only two reasonable ways to post sample spams for general list
analysis.
1) put them on a website and post a link... best for large spam, but not
everyone has this option.
2) post them as an attachment.
In-line quote of spam posted to the list is generally not acceptable, as
the sending MUA modifies the content and this inhibits useful analysis.
Search the list archives for how many times people have had to be told
to re-post with the full spam as an attachment instead of an inline
quote in the body.
Re: attachment policy?
Posted by OpenMacNews <op...@gmail.com>.
hi theo,
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 04:14:05PM -0800, OpenMacNews wrote:
>> question: what's this list's policy for sending attachments to the list ?
>>
>> i'm noticing, e.g., *.pl scripts as attachments ... rather than links to
>> posts at code-paste sites.
>
> I don't think we have a policy about it specifically. Generally speaking
> though, it's good netiquette to do as you said: put your large attachments
> up on a website somewhere and send a link to it instead of sending that
> attachment to everyone.
thx for the clarify.
if there's *any* list(s) that i'd, personally, rather NOT see sending
out attachments, it' *spamassassin* & *clamav*.
any chance of getting attachments simply blocked here? or at least
discussed?
thx!
richard
--
/"\
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
X against HTML email, vCards
/ \ & micro$oft attachments
[GPG] OpenMacNews at gmail dot com
fingerprint: 50C9 1C46 2F8F DE42 2EDB D460 95F7 DDBD 3671 08C6
Re: attachment policy?
Posted by mouss <us...@free.fr>.
Barton L. Phillips a écrit :
> Of course under Windows a .pl may well be linked to perl and therefore
> be executable without having to do a chmod (which of course Windows
> doesn't understand). However, in general I have no problem with either
> in-lining or attaching script code.
>
I don't see much benefit in "linking" .pl to perl, as this means you
double click and the script runs (I am not talking about email here, but
of general windows use). In many cases, perl scripts need arguments. so
running them by double click is at least useless, and at worst harmful.
I rather link .pl to an editor! if you need to run a perl script via
double click, a .bat (or a perl script with a specific extension linked
to perl if you prefer) would allow you to specify command line arguments.
> Executables, on the other hand are a different story. For one, I and, I
> expect others, have software running (like mimedefang) that will reject
> attached executables. If one really needs to post an executable it
> would, IMHO, be better to do so via a web page.
>
yes. I would include .vbs, even if these are scripts.
There is a minimal list of extensions that have nothing to do in email
(who needs a .pif nowadays? and in the rare cases it is needed, it can
be sent using a different method or different "encoding"). now, as the
.wmf story showed, you can't trust the extension. you still need to look
at the magic header. This is fortunately feasible with mimedefang,
amavisd-new, renattach, ripmime, ... etc.
> As I use Linux I don't have much of a problem with attached .exe or .com
> files etc. I NEVER read my mail on any of my Windows machines, and I
> restrict my web browsing to only very well trusted sites and then only
> when I can't use Linux or Firefox because the sites are so Windows only
> designed.
>
The problem is mostly with outlook (even if it can be configured to not
auto run executables, it had vulnerabilities that made it run some
actions without the user "opening" the mail!).
Re: attachment policy?
Posted by "Barton L. Phillips" <ba...@applitec.com>.
Of course under Windows a .pl may well be linked to perl and therefore
be executable without having to do a chmod (which of course Windows
doesn't understand). However, in general I have no problem with either
in-lining or attaching script code.
Executables, on the other hand are a different story. For one, I and, I
expect others, have software running (like mimedefang) that will reject
attached executables. If one really needs to post an executable it
would, IMHO, be better to do so via a web page.
As I use Linux I don't have much of a problem with attached .exe or .com
files etc. I NEVER read my mail on any of my Windows machines, and I
restrict my web browsing to only very well trusted sites and then only
when I can't use Linux or Firefox because the sites are so Windows only
designed.
Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>
>
>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 04:14:05PM -0800, OpenMacNews wrote:
>>
>
>
>>> i'm noticing, e.g., *.pl scripts as attachments ... rather than links to
>>> posts at code-paste sites.
>>>
>> I don't think we have a policy about it specifically. Generally speaking
>> though, it's good netiquette to do as you said: put your large attachments
>>
>
> Sorry. I was thinking of it as a code example, not a program.
>
> The script in question was 29 lines totaling 376 bytes. I was going to
> in-line it into the e-mail, to show how short it was, and made an attachment
> at the last minute, probably thinking it would be easier to look at .
>
> I tend to think of text attachments as just sections of an e-mail, and don't
> think of perl files as executables, since they aren't until you chmod them.
>
> Now, please don't tell me there is some mail program that will automatically
> run a file because it ends in .pl, or begins with #! line !
>
> -Chris
>
> ==========================================================
> Chris Candreva -- chris@westnet.com -- (914) 967-7816
> WestNet Internet Services of Westchester
> http://www.westnet.com/
>
--
----------------
Barton L. Phillips
Applied Technology Resources, Inc.
Tel: (818)652-9850
Web: http://www.applitec.com
Re: attachment policy?
Posted by "Christopher X. Candreva" <ch...@westnet.com>.
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 04:14:05PM -0800, OpenMacNews wrote:
> > i'm noticing, e.g., *.pl scripts as attachments ... rather than links to
> > posts at code-paste sites.
>
> I don't think we have a policy about it specifically. Generally speaking
> though, it's good netiquette to do as you said: put your large attachments
Sorry. I was thinking of it as a code example, not a program.
The script in question was 29 lines totaling 376 bytes. I was going to
in-line it into the e-mail, to show how short it was, and made an attachment
at the last minute, probably thinking it would be easier to look at .
I tend to think of text attachments as just sections of an e-mail, and don't
think of perl files as executables, since they aren't until you chmod them.
Now, please don't tell me there is some mail program that will automatically
run a file because it ends in .pl, or begins with #! line !
-Chris
==========================================================
Chris Candreva -- chris@westnet.com -- (914) 967-7816
WestNet Internet Services of Westchester
http://www.westnet.com/
Re: attachment policy?
Posted by Theo Van Dinter <fe...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 04:14:05PM -0800, OpenMacNews wrote:
> question: what's this list's policy for sending attachments to the list ?
>
> i'm noticing, e.g., *.pl scripts as attachments ... rather than links to
> posts at code-paste sites.
I don't think we have a policy about it specifically. Generally speaking
though, it's good netiquette to do as you said: put your large attachments
up on a website somewhere and send a link to it instead of sending that
attachment to everyone.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
Leela: And nappster says illegal copies never hurt anybody.