decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Gmail not unreliable ... but selective ... | 234 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Gmail not unreliable ... but selective ...
Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 01:43 PM EST
Gmail is simply 'selective'.
I had already read the page you copied but saw nothing that shed any light on the problem I was having. I have no idea why a small tarball got nixed. If it is a pure digital signature then a false positive in such a small file has to be worrisome. If the problem instead is trying to send a tarred executable script then I need to use a different email service.
So sometimes there might be a false positive in the virus checking. I am sure Gmail will gladly refund every penny you paid for the service. Oh. That's right. It's free. So not much cause for complaint.
Your attitude is extremely non-productive. You are saying that whenever a service is free, any bugs or problems should not be reported. This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the FOSS approach. In the FOSS community we pay back by reporting bugs and trying to help get problems fixed.

By complaining here instead of following your do-nothing approach, I:

  • Alert other people to the possible problem
  • Find out of others have experienced this problem and possibly have a solution I can use
  • Perhaps raise the level of awareness of this problem so Google actually fixes it thus improving their Gmail service.

    ---
    Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
    than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
    -- Alan Kay

    [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Then change the suffix
    Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 02:55 PM EST
    And have the recipient save the attachment and rename it back to the correct suffix. If that does not work, then Google has changed their approach as I have sent .exe via .xex suffix. Of course, it was not a virus anyway.

    ---

    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

    [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

    Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
    Comments are owned by the individual posters.

    PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )