From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: C file recoginzed as image file Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 20:31:47 -0500 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1168392750 31088 80.91.229.12 (10 Jan 2007 01:32:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 01:32:30 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 10 02:32:28 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1H4SKJ-0008OL-O6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 02:32:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H4SKJ-0004vw-8W for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 20:32:27 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H4SK6-0004uQ-O9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 20:32:14 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H4SK5-0004sy-56 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 20:32:14 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H4SK5-0004sr-1o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 20:32:13 -0500 Original-Received: from [207.172.157.102] (helo=smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1H4SK4-00012w-OF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 20:32:12 -0500 Original-Received: from mr08.lnh.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.157.28]) by smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 09 Jan 2007 20:32:13 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.13,165,1167627600"; d="scan'208"; a="384999512:sNHT106849146" Original-Received: from smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.11]) by mr08.lnh.mail.rcn.net (MOS 3.7.5a-GA) with ESMTP id IBZ49788; Tue, 9 Jan 2007 20:32:07 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from 208-59-165-113.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com (HELO ACS1100007992) ([208.59.165.113]) by smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 09 Jan 2007 20:32:07 -0500 Original-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org In-Reply-To: (Juanma Barranquero's message of "Tue, 9 Jan 2007 14:25:43 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (windows-nt) X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=mr08.lnh.mail.rcn.net X-Junkmail-SD-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A090205.45A4404F.004B,ss=1,fgs=0, ip=207.172.4.11, so=2006-05-09 23:27:51, dmn=5.2.125/2006-10-10 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:65103 Archived-At: "Juanma Barranquero" writes: > On 1/9/07, Stephen Leake wrote: > >> "if the file extension does not match the contents, it is more likely >> that this is a virus attack" > > "More likely" than what? More likely than the alternative: that it is > not a virus attack? Yes. Obviously, this only makes sense in a weighting scheme, where "more likely" is a useful concept. In the current code, the choices are all binary, so this kind of heuristic isn't much help > I have mislabeled images in my hard disk: it's not unusual in my > experience to find an image in format A, with an extension suggesting > that it is in format B. So far, none of them have been virus attacks. Ok. > Are you proposing also that we reject no > (or warn about) yes, but allow users to easily disable the warning. > a .PNG file disguised as a .JPG, for example? We don't have a > png-mode and a jpeg-mode; the auto-detection and image opening > machinery just return image-mode. Should we redesign it to take that > into account? Perhaps. Certainly not now. It depends on how much effort we want to devote to preventing virus attacks, versus all the other things we need to do. -- -- Stephe