[rescue] Re: NetApps

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

Thu, 08 Apr 2004 @ 20:58 +0100, Mike Meredith said:

> On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 12:15:12 -0600 (MDT), Dan Duncan wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Kevin wrote:
> > > I do agree that it is a bandaid, but i don't have access to a
> > > hospital.  And you will NEVER find anyone who agrees more on
> > > the fact that "EMAIL IS NOT A FILE TRANSFER MECHANISM."  To a
> 
> I'll admit that I've been known to email *small* attachments to small
> numbers of people. But I usually email them a URL which is generated by
> a brain-dead(*) script that allows users to upload their files and email
> URL's instead.


I end up using attachments a lot mainly because I've given up trying to
explain things to the other end of the conversation.  Too many lusers
are so brainwashed now, it is difficult to educate them.

It's not all their fault either: the industry was grossly irresponsible
in promoting bad behavior.

My family for example, is mostly computer newbies.  They don't usually
understand why I complain about getting forwards that are nested 35
levels deep, nor do they understand why I ask them to send me a URL
instead of a 5MB attachment.

If the file is on their computer, most of them don't know how to upload
it anyway, and/or they don't have a place to upload it to.

So it goes into email.

Then there is the "send me a Word .doc file" crap.  I had to do that
today to apply for a job.  Explaining to the HR droid how wrong that is
would likely end my chances of getting the job.

They just sent me the application as a Word form.  Sigh...

I would like to see MTAs enforce limits on email.  Two in particular I
can see as beneficial:

* limit on nesting level of attachments
* limit on combined size of attachments

There *are* times when it is legitimate, but since you cannot rely on
the common sense of lusers, I think the only way to solve the problem is
to limit the system.

I would also like to see all MTAs configured to reject connections from
bad MTAs or ill-configured MTAs, and to do reverse header checks.  The
latter does mean more protocol overhead, but I'm starting to realize it
will pale in comparison to the overhead of the spam it could stop.

Computer technology is like beautiful white tablecloth that took hours
to wash and hours to lay out on the table.  Then 1000 snot-nosed kids
come in and drool and spill Kool-Aide on it.




-- 
shannon "AT" widomaker.com -- [javalin: an unwieldy programming weapon used
to stab a software project through the heart until dead]