App sending causes rejection of mail by google

Good DC team, developers, user,

thought it might be maybe usefull feed forward, if not already known, that it happens that gmail rejects webxdc transfers (tested calendar) seemingly.

“This message was blocked because its content presents a potential
552-5.7.0 security issue. Please visit 552-5.7.0
File types blocked in Gmail - Gmail Help to review our 552 5.7.0
message content and attachment content guidelines.”

1 Like

The message was not encrypted, right? Does it work if you send text messages to establish encryption first?

Not encrypted, of course, good master Link2xt.
Since hardly corresponding within the other realms, my person hasn’t much possibilities to experiment within there, wouldn’t be that proper.

(But wouldn’t it be not strange if a filter recognizes within a mass of encryptions…? Yet again maybe good to remember the double edge of both, ‘uncontrolled’ apps and encrypts.)

GMail will check attachments and may consider attached web apps as “suspicious”.
If messages are encrypted, then GMail does not see the web app attachment.

It is not unexpected that a ZIP archive full of HTML and JavaScript is suspicious, the question is what can we do about it if anything.

Good to ask in both directions, for a ‘good’ and for a ‘bad’, and ciziversa. At least encrypted also prevents possible form all common protections. Just think if such becomes common, it’s the freedom and liberality of forest animals. Is it good to send all into the jungle? And those not so common with survival ‘technics’ might have much reason to fear the ‘wild’.

Not only good minded take on the freedom of the wild, which is at least why there had been grown civilizations, and yes, by nature, are never free, never really open and liberal, of which is simply utopian.

Maybe good to think about such as maybe “DC-verified” apps, and required standards.

My person has to confess that he does not understand the mechanism of those apps at all, at first place.

Seeing that such software can be, without any proof instance, also updated (as seen in change log), limits their relatively secure use totally to ‘freaks’ or if in close relation to such. Knowing the responsibility-taking of this sphere, IT, my person doesn’t feel well in sharing such to others, yet of course appreciate the surely well meant generosity and thoughts.

It can be surely useful if shared and maintained in very personal way, yet as such hardly fits (as most) to any common way that does not principally deny responsibility or ‘pay’ for alternative taking care.

(my person has to add that he made the ‘test-fly’ of particular apps merely on vague trust of being actually given).

Further, and in connection with the two-way-concideration at the beginning, my person would tend to recommend at least a manual approve by any receiver of an app (in a chart) as it goes beyond common attachments (of which, at least, could be not-downloaded, opened). Just a it-dummies feed-forward, and may it’s outing not cause anybody any real disadvantages.

google blocks it, does not mean it needs to be harmful, they just block it because some idiot used it for phishing or scamming one time I guess.
Like sending some html file zipped in an email or sth like that. Or a crypto trojan in a word document macro or similar.

I would just use encryption, if you can encrypt, you already have some social trust anyway. also we have a security audit for webxdc, they found no big vulnerability that we have not closed as of today.

Within the kind of app-software, or in particulary? My person can not image that they are not able to all kinds of thing.

webxdc apps are just websites with even less permissions than normal websites.

Then, if really so, surely good to work for the files acceptance.