[Mimedefang] Who/what considers .eml attachments as harmful/suspect?
philipp_subx at redfish-solutions.com
Tue Nov 6 19:46:53 EST 2007
Jason Gurtz wrote:
> Ironport appliances don't reject any attachments by default.
> Off the top of my head, if you can find answers for Mailscanner and
> Barracuda appliance defaults for this file extension, then I think you
> could feel confident about at least 95% of all deployed attachment filters.
> I've checked out bug 220646 and I can see where your interest stems
> from. ....also feeling glad I'm not part of *that* "conversation." I'd
> be interested in hard stats about how many sites actually do strip .eml
> attachments. My guess is that it's a pretty tiny number.
There's a lot of polemic... as well as certain obvious people that want
it fixed for *them* and they don't care who else it happens to end up
being broken for.
I wish I had a remote control that I could just "mute" such people.
They really don't have much to contribute to the conversation.
Getting it fixed will be nice because (a) 4 years is way too long for
this to be out there, and (b) it will put an end to the
less-than-constructive argument that the bug has spiraled down into. I
also think that the dust has *finally* settled on this issue.
What about MSOE? What do they finally do?
More information about the MIMEDefang