On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, David Snowden wrote:
> We have been using the filter (currently version 0.17) for a while,
> but we are starting to come up with cases where remote sites are objecting
> to us rejecting attachments with certain extensions (eg .eml).
>
> Is the list of extensions based on known viruses, or on
> extensions which could potentially be used for viruses?
mostly the latter i suppose.
> Would it be possible for an attachment with a .eml suffix to
> be used to deliver a virus?
