Re: [Exim] Bugbear/B filtration

> |>So, I sent a self-extracting ZIP, and it was promptly rejected.
> |
> |
> | Indeed, as so would we. I'm disappointed that you don't see the logic
> | of this for yourself. You've every right to discuss the general
> | policy, but, given that they had such a policy, if you intend to send
> | them something then you better fall into line with that policy. They
> | ask for zip format, you send zip format - not exe format.
> Well in this case I could not send zip very easily. I don't HAVE WinZip
> or anything of the like installed. I have WinRAR. It compresses MUCH
> tighter. I did a test compression once a while back, and given the same
> 10MB directory of mixed content (EXEs, TXT files, BMPs, etc...), I got a
> whopping 23% better compression with a solid RAR than with a zip file.
> Now considering that I am oft times connecting to a dialup, every KB
> that I can shave off a file means reduced transfer times. The file was
> 2MB+ as it was.
>
> I see your stand point, but I hope you can see mine.

Umm... But WinZip is free. And would probably compress your original
executable content to something smaller than your first attempt to send it.
Perhaps not as small as RAR, but so what? You already were willing to send it
uncompressed. And repeatedly! ;) So I don't see your point.

When a client asks for format "X", give them format "X". Why send them format
"Y" and then complain when it doesn't work?

Self-extracting executables are just as dangerous as any other executable
content; so, expect them to be filtered out by many, many systems. Also, most
AV scanners can scan a .zip file. How many, I wonder, can scan a RAR file?

Jim Roberts
Punster Productions, Inc.