On Tue, November 29, 2011 7:48 pm, Pandu Poluan wrote: > On Nov 30, 2011 1:29 AM, "kashani" <kashani-l...@badapple.net> wrote: >> >> On 11/29/2011 6:04 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, November 29, 2011 2:22 pm, VinÃcius Ferrão wrote: >>>> >>>> Agreed. >>>> >>>> Filtering Windows executables will only make the system admin to be >>>> recognized as an asshole and windows-hater. >>> >>> >>> I wouldn't class him/her as an ***hole or *******-hater. >>> Simply as an incompetent braindead hobbyist who doesn't know what >>> he/she >>> is doing. >>> >>> Sadly, my ISP filters those on outgoing emails. Which makes it >>> difficult >>> for me to send stuff to friends/colleagues who know how to handle these >>> things. >> >> >> Meh, I'd consider your point of view if the bad *.exe to good > ratio weren't somewhere in the vicinity of a million to 1. No point in > wasting the cycles passing them to AV when you can just reject them. The > one user you're likely to affect can use dropbox, http, ftp, etc. >> > > True. How so very true. It took me more than one year to train my BoD to > stop sending huge files (10MB+) using email. Almost two years to train the > lusers to distrust attachments, and act reciprocally (i. e., to not send > *.exe files unwrapped). > > It's been a hard job trying to turn the lusers into sheeples, but > satisfying when they finally "see the light", so to speak. :-)
True, but my problem with these policies is that they are set for all users. Including the technically savvy who know what to trust and what not to trust. If I'm trying to help someone solve a problem, I might simply want to quickly send a patched version of a file. Wrapping them into a *.zip file is annoying, but ok. Problems start when that trick doesn't work either. > (And you can easily see that I've been reading too much BOFH) BOFH stories are fun. -- Joost
