Email Attachemt Blocking

[support]

This poll is to see how many people would like to have attachments be allowed to go through with email.

Many users have stated that there will be no issues with doing this. If you agree, please post your vote.

Remember.... The servers that allow attachments will not be #1 priority for support issues!

Not all, but some email attachments DO and WILL cause problems! But the vote is up to you!

[sjlocke]

Hi,

How does an encoded attachment threaten the server? Are you opening attachments and running them?

Downloaded attachments should only affect my computer.

sj

[alrac]

like, how many users would be OK with filtering, if it were implemented better? Like, with full disclosure? And sending bounces to the sender, and the stripped message to the recipient? Instead of disappearing them into a black hole....

[Eric Schreiber]

I regularly send and receive file attachments via email as part of my consulting work. It's absolutely vital to me that they go through reliably and unhindered. I recognize that Bad Things can be sent through as well, but I'll take care of my own security.

I can handle any and all email. I don't want anything filtered or removed. That should be an extra feature and it should cost money and I don't want to spend more money. ;^) I am always concerned about false positives getting removed.

[edwurster]

I voted yes, but want to voice a concern. Shouldn't email be scanned to some level for "obvious" problems?

For instance, I don't ever want to receive *.bat files. *.vbs would also be another. But I see the confusion that sets in with *.exe attachments. Some proportion are known "bad guys," while others may simply be an average user sending an executable archive of picture files (like a slideshow.)

Final point is that the original P-Z post alludes to the fact that some attachments if allowed to go through will produce mail box problems. I really want to hear more detail on that.

Ed

Originally posted by edwurster I voted yes, but want to voice a concern. Shouldn't email be scanned to some level for "obvious" problems?

For instance, I don't ever want to receive *.bat files. *.vbs would also be another. But I see the confusion that sets in with *.exe attachments. Some proportion are known "bad guys," while others may simply be an average user sending an executable archive of picture files (like a slideshow.)

Final point is that the original P-Z post alludes to the fact that some attachments if allowed to go through will produce mail box problems. I really want to hear more detail on that.

Ed

Fine if you don't want to receive *bat files pay the extra cost required to filter your mail on the server. But don't shackle me to someone elses idea of virus control.

As for attachments causing email server problems then they need to find a fix for the email server or find new email server software.

[edwurster]

Originally posted by _xemacs


Fine if you don't want to receive *bat files pay the extra cost required to filter your mail on the server. But don't shackle me to someone elses idea of virus control.

As for attachments causing email server problems then they need to find a fix for the email server or find new email server software.

I think my post was not clear. I voted yes, and wanted to have some options. I'm relatively new at P-Z. But I'm relatively old.

I'm glad you brought up the issue of cost. Solutions should be considered as to how they effect P-Z servers (overhead) and the customer (my cost.)

For instance, letting all attachments through will use additional disk space, use less CPU, etc. After I wrote my request, it occurred to me that as I request more options, there is some cost for each.

Thanks for your reply.

Ed

[sjlocke]

Originally posted by edwurster


I think my post was not clear. I voted yes, and wanted to have some options. I'm relatively new at P-Z. But I'm relatively old.

I'm glad you brought up the issue of cost. Solutions should be considered as to how they effect P-Z servers (overhead) and the customer (my cost.)

For instance, letting all attachments through will use additional disk space, use less CPU, etc. After I wrote my request, it occurred to me that as I request more options, there is some cost for each.

Thanks for your reply.

Ed

Heeeellooo?

You want to save money on disk space or CPU? Why not block all images? I mean c'mon. Trying to justify the filtering with stuff that can apply to ANYTHING on the server is a little silly.

sj

[edwurster]

Originally posted by sjlocke


Heeeellooo?

You want to save money on disk space or CPU? Why not block all images? I mean c'mon. Trying to justify the filtering with stuff that can apply to ANYTHING on the server is a little silly.

sj

I'm not trying to justify anything. It's just conversation, ok?

Ed

[bobchmara]

Originally posted by support
This poll is to see how many people would like to have attachments be allowed to go through with email.

Remember.... The servers that allow attachments will not be #1 priority for support issues!

Framing the problem this way shows a lack of professionalism. As I've stated before, I could live with filtering if I could get the body of the e-mail and an indication that the attachment was stripped.

Why not take a poll that asks "Would you like to be notified when your e-mail is blocked or would you prefer there be no notification?"

I'd like to hear Jim's thoughts on this one.

Bob Chmara

[TechWeasel]

Originally posted by support
This poll is to see how many people would like to have attachments be allowed to go through with email.

You know I love you PZ, but I have to go on record as saying this is an extremely poorly worded question. Mindbogglingly so.

Given the recent forum threads on the topic everyone seems to be assuming that what is actually being asked is:

"Currently the mail server blocks incoming messages with un-archived executable attachments and does not provide any notification to the intended recipient that such messages have been blocked. Would you like us to allow these messages to go through unfiltered instead?"

What the question literally asks (as written) is:

"Would you like to send e-mail with attachments and recieve e-mail with attachments?"

I certainly hope what's being polled is the former inference (as the latter literal interpretation of the question is rediculous).

I might be hyper-sensitive because I've spent the week coordinating a market-research experiement but I can't believe that the question as stated was:

a) approved by anyone at PZ
b) not yet clarified

Judging from this thread the issue people are voting on is certainly not the question posed by the poll as written.

The bottom line is this: the filtering of attachments as currently practised amounts to censorship. Nobody has the right to take it upon themselves to block any mail addressed to me. The security concern expressed is a red herring, as there is no risk to the server, unless attachments are being executed on the server. If that happens, the issue is the far more serious one of invasion of privacy and it may even be illegal. In my jurisdiction it certainly is and a competitor of mine ended up in the newspapers recently when it emerged he was filtering his clients' e-mail and was instructed by the courts to desist.

I take full responsibility for AV security at my end and nobody has any right to interfer with my business communications. End of story.

[prince]

Maybe everyone needs to remember - the PZ servers are shared with about 500 users (when full). WHO is going to take care of all the other 499 users on the server if not PZ.

If just one idiot on your server opens an executable file that installs a virus or worm - then starts sending out mass mailing (or spam) - Do you not realize it CAN affect ALL on that server?

If the server gets put on a big spam list (Spamcop, etc) - then EVERYONE on that server is 'shit out of luck' until we can get off the list. I've been there - on another host and it's NOT fun trying to get off some of those list.

I've been with a lot of different hosting companies thru the years and PZ is only doing what the all do - trying to find the best way to protect the server - and ALL the idiots that are in the mix.

Besides it's their company to run (or ruin) as they see fit. If people want to 'set the rules' - be in full control - they should get a dedicated server IMHO

Bottom line: is everyone can bitch, cry, moan and groan all they want but there is NO WAY to make everyone happy. If you want to control a server then get a dedicated server. Meanwhile for these prices - I'm glad PZ is taking the flak and trying to protect the server.