On Mon, 05 Aug 2002 at 02:09:57PM -0400, Wheeler, Doug (NTC) wrote: > It seems to me that to rely on limiting image type to jpg/jpeg with a > size limit (or similar approaches) as a virus protection is extremely > risky. > > Yes, you will avoid some of the viruses that fall within those > parameters, but what about the other methods that these creeps use? > (what happens if a virus is 600 lines, with a false extension of > jpg?) Files with a .jpg extension do not get executed and thus pose no viral threat regardless of the actual content. Regards, -rex