Fw: [plug][protocol] no attachments please

[Anthony J. Breeds-Taurima]

On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Bret Busby wrote:

> Without knowing how the mailing list application operates, or how it can 
> be configured, as some have this obsession about wanting the inclusion 
> of signature attachments retained, so that they can show off that they 
> are using PGP, can the mailing list application be configured to strip 
> attachments that are not signature attachments?

Honnestly don't know, but I would guess that you either have attachemnts
or you don't.
 
> That is a question, not a request. Significant difference.

Yes, that is a question but Waynes:
Any chance you can switch to sending to the list without attachments?

Looks very much like a request to me.  I'm trying to get a decision
on this topic, and I thought a comittee decision would be a reasonable way
to do it.

> If it can be done, I suggest that it be considered (that is the 
> request). 
> 
> I do not know whether it is an issue that can be decided by 
> the mailing list administrator, at that person's discretion, or, whether 
> it needs to be decided by the PLUG committee. I am not sure even who the 

I feel it needs to be a committee decision, but list feedback (in the form
below) is welcome.

> list administrator is, now. A previous request that I made to the list 
> administrator, via the list, has not been acknowledged by a person, 
> saying "I am the list administrator, and ...". 
> 
> In the past, polls regarding the operation of the list have (from 
> memory) been conducted on the list, with something like
> 
> "Poll regarding attachments on mailing list
> 
> ( ) Option 1 Strip all attachments
> ( ) Option 2 Strip all attachments that are not signatures
> ( ) Option 3 Reject all messages that include attachments
> ( ) Option 4 Make no change
> Please reply, inserting an "x" in one of the above pairs of brackets, to 
> indicate your choice. At the end of one week from the timestamp of this 
> message, the results will be  counted and published, and the decision 
> made accordingly."

Seems reasonable to me, if you (or Wayne) would like to post this poll
to the mailing list and then collate the results offlist then
that would be great as a petetion for the committee to consider.

I would also suggest that you have a "coments" type field so
people can add a reason for their choice if they see fit.
 
> It must be remembered, that not all subscribers to this list, use  
> either Linux to access their email, or, good, plain text mail readers 
> like pine, to read their email, and that there are therefore subscribers 
> to the list, who can get stuck with viruses that are transmitted by the 
> list. Also, and an equally important consideration, is that, no matter 
> what anti-viral software is used by a computer user, insofar as I am 
> aware, no antiviral software is guaranteed as being absolutely secure, 
> so there is the possibility that a virus that is transmitted via the 
> list, could be a virus that gets through the anti-viral software that a 
> subscriber has installed, and, keeps up to date as much as the 
> anti-viral software manufacturer is up to date.

True but the flip side is, a well behaved MUA on a windows box, with current
DAT files, with a reasonable level of paranoia can be virus free.

My wife uses windows(tm) (ducking) and in the 7 years she's had her machine(s)
she has had _not one_ virus infection.  She conducts 95% of her business via
email, includeing sending/recieveing attachments, with less than virus-aware
customers.
 
> And, as previously stated, the only two mailing lists (out of about 80 
> to which I subscribe) of which I am aware, do not automatically strip 
> attachments, are the two from which I have received viral messages, and 
> this has happened within the last month. Both are Linux-related lists, 
> which is unfortunate, and is not good for the reputations of either 
> Linux, or, the lists. And, given the upcoming Linux conference is being 
> held in Perth, the reputations of both Linux, and of any mailing list 
> associated with PLUG, should be regarded as needing to be protected, 
> and, viral transmission by PLUG, via its mailing list, is not good for 
> either.

While, I'm sorry for your experience, I doubt very much that your virus 
expericence will tarnish the reputation of LCA, nor should it.

Of the many (I'm not going to count them) mailing lists I'm subscribed to
nearly all of them have had viruses transmitted on them at some stage.  None
of them (that I'm aware of) strip attachments.  They do include (ironically)
a virus notification list :)

Yours Tony

   Jan 22-25 2003           Linux.Conf.AU            http://linux.conf.au/
		  The Australian Linux Technical Conference!