|
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, November 12 2012 @ 11:32 PM EST |
You may just be running into unlucky compression.
If you change the compression, you may get lucky.
What software would auto-execute either?
What I am asking is this: does any email client attempt
to execute such an attachment?
It seems like tarballs should be ignored by Google.
Google should not worry about some stupid email
client that attempts to auto-execute tarballs.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- .gz or .bz2 ? - Authored by: jbb on Monday, November 12 2012 @ 11:56 PM EST
- Lookout - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 03:12 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 09:26 AM EST |
I just sent an uncompressed tarball to myself using gmail with no problems. It
would be totally unGoogle like to block tar files and it's clear to me that they
do not.
Odds are it was the receiver's mail server that rejected your mail.
Unless you included headers and a way to reproduce your problem, you are just
spreading anti-Google FUD.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: hAckz0r on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 12:02 PM EST |
A common trick is to simply rename the attachment to some other extension like
'*.abc'. If the mail system does not use the 'magic' byte sequence lookup to
determine the attachment type it won't bother to look inside the archive.
If that doesn't work then another trick is to double encode/compress the file
so it has more than one layer to extract to read the contents Like a renamed,
gziped, uuencoded, *.tar with a second attachment readme.txt with one simple
cut-n-paste command to extract it.
Fortunately AV scanners still can't read
and they don't do problem solving very well either. That's of course why we
still have viruses to scan for.
---
The Investors IP Law: The future
health of a Corporation is measured as the inverse of the number of IP lawsuits
they are currently litigating. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 03:18 PM EST |
You must have something it doesn't like inside your tarball.
Just what, you'll have to find for yourself...
I've just made a foo.tgz using bsdtar 2.6.2 - libarchive 2.6.2
from a folder containing .a .c .dylib .h .la .mak .o .pl .py .sh
and a non-suffixed shellscript and a nonsuffixed Makefile.
I sent it from my gmail acct to another gmail acct, no problems.
I wouldn't have on my machine, or send to anyone else,
files with suffixes on gmail's banned list.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
