attachments disabled?

Discussions about the forum and contents
Post Reply
User avatar
Topic Author
tiresias
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:54 am

attachments disabled?

Post by tiresias »

why are the attachments disabled? what's going on?
~~~ when dumb money acknowledges its limitations, it ceases to be dumb ~~~
User avatar
Mel Lindauer
Moderator
Posts: 35782
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Daytona Beach Shores, Florida
Contact:

Re: attachments disabled?

Post by Mel Lindauer »

Mel Lindauer wrote:
tiresias wrote:why are the attachments disabled? what's going on?
Nothing's going on. We don't allow attachments to be posted on the forum. They would end up in the forum database and could include viruses or sinister code that could bring the site down.
Best Regards - Mel | | Semper Fi
User avatar
bob90245
Posts: 6511
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:51 pm

Re: attachments disabled?

Post by bob90245 »

I can confirm the attachment feature has just been turned off. By contrast in the last day or two, I posted a number of attachments to this thread:

http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtop ... 7#p1237029

You'll notice that a few of the posts won't make any sense now because they refer to the chart attachments which are no longer visible.
Ignore the market noise. Keep to your rebalancing schedule whether that is semi-annual, annual or trigger bands.
User avatar
Mel Lindauer
Moderator
Posts: 35782
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Daytona Beach Shores, Florida
Contact:

Re: attachments disabled?

Post by Mel Lindauer »

bob90245 wrote:I can confirm the attachment feature has just been turned off. By contrast in the last day or two, I posted a number of attachments to this thread:

http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtop ... 7#p1237029

You'll notice that a few of the posts won't make any sense now because they refer to the chart attachments which are no longer visible.
Yes, they were turned off awaiting the forum owner's decision whether to allow them or not, and, if so, which file types to allow. We don't think attachments were allowed before the software update, but we could be wrong.
Best Regards - Mel | | Semper Fi
User avatar
Topic Author
tiresias
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:54 am

Re: attachments disabled?

Post by tiresias »

Mel Lindauer wrote: Yes, they were turned off awaiting the forum owner's decision whether to allow them or not, and, if so, which file types to allow. We don't think attachments were allowed before the software update, but we could be wrong.
i can verify that attachments were indeed allowed because i recently posted with one. but now it's gone. not a problem though because i edited the post to supply a url link to the same thing.
~~~ when dumb money acknowledges its limitations, it ceases to be dumb ~~~
User avatar
Mel Lindauer
Moderator
Posts: 35782
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Daytona Beach Shores, Florida
Contact:

Re: attachments disabled?

Post by Mel Lindauer »

tiresias wrote:
Mel Lindauer wrote: Yes, they were turned off awaiting the forum owner's decision whether to allow them or not, and, if so, which file types to allow. We don't think attachments were allowed before the software update, but we could be wrong.
i can verify that attachments were indeed allowed because i recently posted with one. but now it's gone. not a problem though because i edited the post to supply a url link to the same thing.
The software update was done in mid-Oct. IIRC. Prior to that, we don't think attachments were allowed, and we're concerned that this "feature" slipped through unnoticed on the software update. Once we discovered it was on (likely by default), we turned it off.
Best Regards - Mel | | Semper Fi
sscritic
Posts: 21853
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:36 am

Re: attachments disabled?

Post by sscritic »

To summarize:

1) attachments were not allowed.
2) the upgrade allowed attachments.
3) attachments were turned off.

Thus, statements like "attachments were allowed" and "attachments were turned off" are true. What is also true is that people running this forum didn't want attachments, didn't allow attachments, but were out foxed by the defaults contained in the upgrade. They have now captured the fox.
User avatar
Mel Lindauer
Moderator
Posts: 35782
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Daytona Beach Shores, Florida
Contact:

Re: attachments disabled?

Post by Mel Lindauer »

sscritic wrote:To summarize:

1) attachments were not allowed.
2) the upgrade allowed attachments.
3) attachments were turned off.

Thus, statements like "attachments were allowed" and "attachments were turned off" are true. What is also true is that people running this forum didn't want attachments, didn't allow attachments, but were out foxed by the defaults contained in the upgrade. They have now captured the fox.
That 'splains things very nicely, sscritic. :D
Best Regards - Mel | | Semper Fi
User avatar
ddb
Posts: 5511
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:37 am
Location: American Gardens Building, West 81st St.

Re: attachments disabled?

Post by ddb »

Mel Lindauer wrote:
sscritic wrote:To summarize:

1) attachments were not allowed.
2) the upgrade allowed attachments.
3) attachments were turned off.

Thus, statements like "attachments were allowed" and "attachments were turned off" are true. What is also true is that people running this forum didn't want attachments, didn't allow attachments, but were out foxed by the defaults contained in the upgrade. They have now captured the fox.
That 'splains things very nicely, sscritic. :D
Too bad...I was just about to upload a very helpful file called 'SeriouslyThisIsntAVirus.exe'!
"We have to encourage a return to traditional moral values. Most importantly, we have to promote general social concern, and less materialism in young people." - PB
User avatar
jeff mc
Posts: 2735
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:42 pm
Location: minnesota
Contact:

Re: attachments disabled?

Post by jeff mc »

there is a balance/counter-balance needed between end-user usability/enlightenment and protection. there is no (or very little) appetite to allow all files, including EXEs, COMs, SCRs, etc in the longterm. however, picture files like JPGs, PNGs, PDFs, GIFs, etc. are safe and effective communication formats.

then, there are files in the 'middle' (meaning have some security risks and also have some sharing value) like XLS, XLSX, XLSM (macro enabled excel files), DOC, DOCX, PPTM, etc.

we will develop a cohesive, logical attachment policy soon. until then, we're doing the safe approach and temporarily removing file attaching functionality.

www.tinypic.com etc. can be used to post charts, graphics, etc. until such time as certain files may be able to be attached directly. however, from a database overhead perspective, speed issues, spammer abatement, etc. there may be a 'no file attachment' policy established. we continue to work through these admin issues.

so, everyone's patience is appreciated during this period when we're still shaking out new software issues w/ this forum.
porcupine
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 11:05 am

Re: attachments disabled?

Post by porcupine »

sscritic wrote:To summarize:

1) attachments were not allowed.
2) the upgrade allowed attachments.
3) attachments were turned off.

Thus, statements like "attachments were allowed" and "attachments were turned off" are true. What is also true is that people running this forum didn't want attachments, didn't allow attachments, but were out foxed by the defaults contained in the upgrade. They have now captured the fox.
Posters need to think outside the fox now! :wink:

- Porcupine
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52216
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: attachments disabled?

Post by nisiprius »

I was using the "attachments" feature, not knowing that it was unintentionally enabled, and finding it to be a great convenience. What was particularly nice was that you could attach a wide image, without scaling it, and the software would display it in a normal, not-too-wide frame, with scrollbars.

I understand that security is an issue, and I don't know if there's any way to ensure that image attachments are what they seem... but if there's a way to enable attachments safely for images only, well, that would be nice.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
User avatar
Mel Lindauer
Moderator
Posts: 35782
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Daytona Beach Shores, Florida
Contact:

Re: attachments disabled?

Post by Mel Lindauer »

nisiprius wrote:I was using the "attachments" feature, not knowing that it was unintentionally enabled, and finding it to be a great convenience. What was particularly nice was that you could attach a wide image, without scaling it, and the software would display it in a normal, not-too-wide frame, with scrollbars.

I understand that security is an issue, and I don't know if there's any way to ensure that image attachments are what they seem... but if there's a way to enable attachments safely for images only, well, that would be nice.
However, allowing images allows the porn spammers to post their porn pics overnight and we hear all kinds of complaints the next morning.
Best Regards - Mel | | Semper Fi
sscritic
Posts: 21853
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:36 am

Re: attachments disabled?

Post by sscritic »

I am no expert, but I thought you could imbed all sorts of things in images (maps of Iranian nuclear facilities, viruses, etc.).

http://www.tropicalpcsolutions.com/html ... virus.html
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52216
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: attachments disabled?

Post by nisiprius »

Mel Lindauer wrote:...allowing images allows the porn spammers to post their porn pics overnight and we hear all kinds of complaints the next morning.
Oh.

Never mind. :(
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
User avatar
ddb
Posts: 5511
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:37 am
Location: American Gardens Building, West 81st St.

Re: attachments disabled?

Post by ddb »

nisiprius wrote:
Mel Lindauer wrote:...allowing images allows the porn spammers to post their porn pics overnight and we hear all kinds of complaints the next morning.
Oh.

Never mind. :(
That seems easily solved by imposing a membership minimum post or minimum tenure requirement in order to be able to post attachments.

I do find the feature particularly useful for sharing .pdf files.

- DDB
"We have to encourage a return to traditional moral values. Most importantly, we have to promote general social concern, and less materialism in young people." - PB
Post Reply