[Esa-l] Possible suggestions...

[John D. Hardin]

On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, Murray Crane wrote:

> 	I can see two obvious ways around this: 1 - A separate
> scanning engine for the P_E (don't bother saying, I can see that
> it's a daft idea);

No, actually that's the preferred solution. Poisoning should not
depend on mangling. It doesn't have to be a seperate engine, just a
separate step in the sanitizer, independent of filename mangling.

What I plan to achieve (Real Soon Now!) is to have attachment filename
poisoning sepearate from mangling, and have mangling be
user-selectable to be MANGLE_LIST or SAFE_LIST (e.g. "mangle all
except").

> 2 - An external M_E_EXTRAS file, containing a single line of
> further extensions to be mangled, in the same format as the M_E
> list to make it a little easier on yourself (or whoever) to
> implement.

I've been thinking of something similar to that, given the number of
questions I receive about why the sanitizer is mangling .DOC files and
how to stop it.

> (There was going to be a 2. but with a tiny bit of tweaking I can do it 
> myself.  Basically, having the intended local recipient listed on all the 
> SECURITY_NOTIFY* reports.  Worthy of consideration for inclusion in the 
> main tree?)

Of course! This is open source after all. However: the latest version
has a SECURITY_NOTIFY_RECIPIENT option - what version are you running?

--
 John Hardin KA7OHZ   ICQ#15735746   http://www.wolfenet.com/~jhardin/
 jhardin at wolfenet.com      pgpk -a finger://gonzo.wolfenet.com/jhardin
  768: 0x41EA94F5 - A3 0C 5B C2 EF 0D 2C E5  E9 BF C8 33 A7 A9 CE 76 
 1024: 0xB8732E79 - 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C  AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  "Bother," said Pooh as he struggled with /etc/sendmail.cf, "it never
  does quite what I want. I wish Christopher Robin was here."
				-- Peter da Silva in a.s.r
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   3 days until we know who is President