On Tue, November 29, 2011 2:36 pm, Pandu Poluan wrote: > On Nov 29, 2011 8:25 PM, "VinÃcius Ferrão" > <viniciusfer...@cc.if.ufrj.br> > wrote: >> >> Agreed. >> >> Filtering Windows executables will only make the system admin to be > recognized as an asshole and windows-hater. >> >> On Nov 29, 2011, at 10:11 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote: >> >> > On Mon, November 28, 2011 7:27 pm, MiÃâ¢u Moldovan wrote: >> > <SNIPPED> >> >> Also, a good idea is to block >> >> extensions such as exe, pif, bat (in zip files also) before scanning >> >> for viruses (if such a scan is really needed). >> > >> > I disagree. There are valid reasons to send "*.exe" and "*.bat" files > via >> > email. Braindead filters on extensions only cause problems. >> > > > With my current setup, I already block .exe, .pif, .com, .lnk, .scr, and > their ilks. > > But I do allow .zip and .rar, though.
Do you have a good reason to block on extensions? Virus-scanners work quite nicely already and are not fooled by changing the extensions. I have received viruses where the email contained instructions to change the extension to .exe. Filtering on extension will not stop those. -- Joost
