Thread by @thomas_quinlan

So my web host - @WebHostCanada - has decided that they will block EML from being *sent*. They suggest users d/l emails, zip them, then re-attach those EMLs instead of "Forward as Attachment". They claim EMLs are "executable" and can "spread malware".

The fact is that EMLs are *self-opening* and not actually *executable*, whereas ZIP files CAN be *executable* does not seem to be getting through to @WebHostCanada. This also breaks functionality (ie, forwarding emails to @evernote for example) & doesn't provide any security.

I would argue that this policing for security is the responsibility of the receiver for the most part; they should decide if they will accept EML files.

I would also argue that it places and undue technical burden on non-technical users to figure out how to d/l & zip EMLs.

I would also suggest that this could potentially go against RFCs but to be fair I've not checked the relevant ones.

(Does anyone know?)

I'm now considering moving away from @WebHostCanada having been a mostly satisfied customer to this point. Which is kinda crazy.

This has all only come about in the last two days; apparently someone has made a draconian decision & only been concerned about EML files in the last two days, whereas given that malware has been a thing for decades they might be a bit late to the part @WebHostCanada.

Either way, I think the whole thing is ridiculous for the reasons mentioned above.

Do you agree with me that EMLs should be allowed through, or is @WebHostCanada right to be concerned about EMLs?

@threadreaderapp unroll