[Samba] .eml files rejected by samba

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 17:59, Simon Hobson wrote:
> Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> 
> >  > No, default value of veto_files includes *.eml. This bit me as well -
> >  > in our case we couldn't figure out why we couldn't copy riched20.dll
> >>  to the server.
> >
> >The default value (in current SVN, but I've never seen a change to this)
> >does no such thing.
> >
> >Perhaps your vendor-supplied configuration has such a value explicitly
> >specified, but samba.org's default is for no veto files.
> 
> Well it's certainly the default in Suse supplied configs. It's to 
> stop the spread of the Nimda virus via Samba shares (see 
> http://us4.samba.org/samba/ftp/docs/README.Win32-Viruses). A Google 
> search for "samba veto riched20.dll" turns up quite a few hits, 
> although most of them are postings of smb.conf files, which suggests 
> to me that it isn't just Suse that's affected.

As you have noticed, this behaviour is 'by design'.  The workaround for
the windows virus is indeed as described, and is behaving correctly.  

It is up to each administrator to understand the implications of changes
to the default configuration, and it should be on the head of any
distributor that sets 'example' configuration values to understand and
document what they are doing.  

Banning arbitrary filenames is not a solution to the virus problem, but
when you have a Windows virus on the loose, some drastic measures are
often better than the loss of data that might otherwise result.

Andrew Bartlett
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/attachments/20040703/5182da94/attachment.bin