Fw: [plug][protocol] no attachments please (was: Virus attachment avoidance protocol (VAAP))

[wayne]

> Tony wrote:
> What is the problem the a text attachment? the extra bandwith requirements
> would be 100 bytes per message at the outside.

Why add extra 100 bytes (more or less)?

If the reason to include UNNECESSARY attachments (by committee vote or
other) is to ensure that viruses proliferate on the network then please say
so.  Otherwise I want to hear the argument for including UNNECESSARY
attachments instead of plain text.  Please re-read word "UNNECESSARY", just
in case you can't HEAR ME.

> Brian wrote:
> (x ) Option 4 Make no change

Why?  Please give reasonable argument against "UNNECESSARY".  That is, if
you can say it in text then why say it in BLOATED, AWKWARD TEXT attachments
?

> Colin wrote:
> Signed messages are likely to be increasingly common. I vote for
> Bernard's suggestion of a message-size limit.

How many signed sigs do we have at the moment (I mean other than the "one".)
?  Been plenty of opportunity for others to join in but it hasn't happened
has it?

> Craig wrote:
> Personally, I'm all for attachment stripping - _if_ it can be done using
> something like procmail that can selectively strip attachments. I'd
> prefer, personally, not to strip S/MIME and PGP attachments but anything
> else can go >/dev/null .

Craig, I am against deleting other people's words or important information -
I want to hear what they say.  That's why I don't delete them here.  I do
not mind attachments of real relevance - that has a place.  However, Craig,
I ask myself what if the UNNECESSARY attachments keep coming from people who
don't care about other members?

Regards to all,
wayne.