full-disclosure - FD should block attachments

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <200404021123.03067.mklinke@futzin.com>
From: mklinke at futzin.com (Mike Klinke)
Subject: FD should block attachments

On Friday 02 April 2004 10:27, Tim wrote:
> > Did you ever consider that people in some parts of the world pay
> > by the byte or by the time they're online, and attachments,
> > especially large ones *and* html email cost them money
> > personally?
>
> I have to agree here.  There are some who would say that email was
> never intended as a means to transfer files.  It is a very impolite
> way of getting a group of people a file.  Sending a link, is much
> more considerate to the subscribers and to those hosting the list.
>
> I don't know if blocking all attachments is the answer here, since
> doing that would block many signatures, but perhaps it would be
> worthwhile to block all but a couple of mime types.
>
> tim

It shouldn't have to be an "all or nothing" solution.  If some 
enterprising sole simply re-distributed the raw list with 
attachments, html, silly corporate signatures, and what-not stripped 
I'd guess a fair percentage of the subscribers would move to the 
re-distributed list.  I can't imagine the current list "owners" would 
object but I've been known to be wrong in the past .....

Regards,  Mike Klinke