On 23/01/06, Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 22:16 +0530, Ankush Grover wrote: > My point was that it's virtually impossible to do this because > attachments can be split up into multiple emails (thus getting around > size restrictions) and can be included in (say) uuencode format in the > message body rather than using a MIME-style attachment. In fact, that's > how most people used to send large files over email before MIME came > along. > > There must be an underlying reason why a ban on attachments is wanted > (e.g. prevent sending confidential data, prevent sending viruses) and it > might be better to attack the issue directly rather than in a roundabout > way by trying to ban attachments. Good point. But the fact is that a simple filter (e.g. in postfix header_checks) is sufficient to solve a good proportion of the problem. Average users do not have uuencode installed on their Windows box let alone know what it is and how to use it. Businesses may have a problem with attachments wasting bandwidth, time and posing a threat to workplace harmony (e.g. sexual harrasment). A simple, easy to implement filter can "do the trick" nicely. -- Kind regards, John Francis
