[ILUG] shfs vs. nfs

[Dave O Connor]

Because that would be altering the content of the email, which is a
big no-no in pretty much every sensible person's book.

SMTP isn't a file transfer protocol. If you're having problems
transferring files with it, use a tool designed to transfer files.

     - DoC

On 21/07/05, Rory Browne <rory.browne at gmail.com> wrote:
> Why can't gmail just change it internally to something.bin, or some
> other extension? I mean why can't something.exe be renamed to
> something.exe.bin or something.exe.attachment - you know what I mean.
> 
> On 7/21/05, Gerard Keating <gerard.keating at fintrax.com> wrote:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ilug-bounces at linux.ie [mailto:ilug-bounces at linux.ie] On Behalf
> > Of niall at linux.ie
> > > Sent: 21 July 2005 12:07
> > > To: ilug at linux.ie
> > > Subject: Re: [ILUG] shfs vs. nfs
> >
> > > And while I'm here - a little OT rant about gmail. I wanted to mail
> > myself a Windows
> > > executable from somebody else's PC, using dialup. This was painful
> > enough, but after
> > > uploading the file, gmail announced that .exe files can cause security
> > problems, and
> > > wouldn't let me send it. So, I zipped it up, and sent it over the
> > dialup connection
> > > AGAIN - and gmail announced that the zip file contained an .exe file
> > and that these
> > > can cause security problems, and wouldn't let me send it. Next step
> > would have been a
> > > password protected zip file, but I ran out of time. What's the betting
> > that gmail
> > > would anyway have told me that password protected zip files can cause
> > security
> > > problems, and have not allowed me to send it.
> >
> >
> > M$ Outlook does the same, renaming the file normally is enough to fool
> > it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Irish Linux Users' Group
> > http://www.linux.ie/mailman/listinfo/ilug/
> >
> >
> --
> Irish Linux Users' Group
> http://www.linux.ie/mailman/listinfo/ilug/
> 
>