RE: 543.rar attachment
From: Sean Crawford (sean01_at_accnet.com.au)
Date: 03/16/05
- Previous message: Kelly Martin: "SF new article announcement: A Method for Forensic Previews"
- In reply to: David J ONEILL: "Re: 543.rar attachment"
- Next in thread: Jonathan Loh: "Re: 543.rar attachment"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: "David J ONEILL" <David.J.Oneill@state.or.us>, <kinnell.t@gmail.com>, <security-basics@securityfocus.com>, <kj6loh@yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 01:07:17 +1100
To all those following this thread.
I just want to make my point of view clear about this subject with my .02
cents worth included.......
I DO NOT have a have any problem at all about letting compressed files
through my mail servers that are running NOD32 as a Virus scanner or at the
very least a quarantine system for suss files.
Why start blocking compressed file extensions?, start messing with and
restricting what should and can be an open form of communication in such a
manner and the system becomes a hassle for the user instead of a useful
tool....
Patch all machines, firewall/s, good virus scanner software, backups and
fall over plans are of a lot more use than draconian filters in my view.
Sean.
.
- Previous message: Kelly Martin: "SF new article announcement: A Method for Forensic Previews"
- In reply to: David J ONEILL: "Re: 543.rar attachment"
- Next in thread: Jonathan Loh: "Re: 543.rar attachment"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|