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

[Anthony J. Breeds-Taurima]

On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, wayne wrote:

> > 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.

Note, I'm not talking about .exe, .bat  etc etc we're talking about 
text attachments.

How do you define unnecessary?  
Can a computer implement your unnecessary filter?  
How does your unnecessary filter compare to mine?

> > 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
> ?

Brian, has expressed his opinion, he has no need to defend it.
 
Yours Tony

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