On 13 Sep 2002, Jim Rosenberg wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-09-12 at 16:59, Brian Schonecker wrote:
> > I'm not so sure where to put the finger on this one. Since it's seven
> > separate emails, there's no way for Anomy to determine that it's supposed to
> > one, big email. So Anomy surely isn't to blame.
> Sorry, but I disagree, *STRONGLY*.
> Most other MIME filter vendors do seem to be accepting the challenge of
> dealing with this.
> If someone can send a .exe attachment which passes through Anomy
> untouched and arrives in the mailbox of an Outlook Express user intact
> and double-clickable, then Anomy has failed me.
> I don't know how other admins feel, but speaking for myself, I'd be
> quite happy to see Anomy just defang
> Content-type: message/partial;
> This should be a fairly simple fix. In the whole time I've been using
> Anomy I can count on the fingers of a couple of hands the number of
> times I've needed to fish a legitimate executable out of quarrantine for
> someone; I'd be awfully surprised if legitimate cases of fragmented
> executables start keeping me busy.
> If the fragment header is defanged, then on receipt it should simply
> fail reassembly.
so i am safe anyway ?
if the first part of the message does not pass through.
of course it might be prettier if the whole exe would be in
-- BINGO: b to b Requirements --- Engelbert Gruber -------+ SSG Fintl,Gruber,Lassnig / A6410 Telfs Untermarkt 9 / Tel. ++43-5262-64727 ----+