Subject: Re: Any value in this list ?

From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 12:14:40 +0200

Melinda writes:

> It would be refreshing if someone stepped forward
> and said "This is my problem. I will try to fix it."

I'll say it, at least with respect to machines under my control.  I just avoid
opening suspicious attachments, actually.  That works really well.

At the moment, in the case of SirCam, which continues to flood my mailbox
(probably because of this list, but I'm not sure), I have OE set to direct
anything of any significant size into a separate folder.  I examine the folder
periodically, trash anything that is obviously a copy of SirCam, and manually
examine any messages that look legitimate (it _is_ possible to do this in OE
without actually even opening the message).

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 21:23:12 -0700

Melinda Shore wrote:
	[..]
> You'll note, too, that just
> because someone who would break into your house is a criminal miscreant
> doesn't mean that you don't lock the doors.

Good point. Can we get back to discussing how to lock the
door? At least two approaches seem appealing to me - [email-masked]
doesn't forward messages over 32 kbyte, and only forwards messages
that are plain ASCII. So... who can actually make this happen,
and why isn't it done yet?

cheers,
gja

---

From: Ari Ollikainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 23:39:46 -0700

>and why isn't it done yet?

	So...has anyone gone back and done the analysis on the archive
	to see what the actual message size range happens to be?

	32KB happens to be a bit on the largish side for ACSII TEXT
	messages.