Re: FUD about security and file extensions (was Re: Why file content sniffing sucks)

[Blomberg David <dblomber Libertec com>]

On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 02:14, Adam Williams wrote:
> > > 1. Windows hides the .exe
> > > 2. Even if windows does not have the .exe, the users are able to execute
> > > attached programs.
> > So you're advocating that all users know what .exe means.  Oh, and .pl,
> > .py, .sh, etc etc.  Yes, that's really a solution... not.
> > Or are you advocating that we kill email functionality by disallowing
> > the manual opening of attachments to protect the user?
> 
> This debate is ludicrous.
> 
do not discount that Linux/Unix files are not executable by default
(Mail clients can and probably will by pass this and it is a feature
that Lindows and other will get rid of "for end users ease of use)

2-the origional argument went that by "proper file extensions speed
would increase for a 1000+ item folder to show proper thumbnails"  This
has more to due to number of items rather than figuring out the
extensions so the whole complaint is Ludicrous!
-- 
David Blomberg
AIS, APS, ASE, CCNA, LCP, LCA, Linux+, LPI I, MCP, MCSA, MCSE, RHCE, Server+
Nihon Libertec
dblomber libertec com