Там какой-либо путь состоит в том, чтобы препятствовать тому, чтобы Excel 2007/2010 включал .bin файлы в сохраненные .xlsx файлы?
Как хост подвижного сервера будет говорить с файловыми серверами? По NFS или некоторому другому протоколу удаленной файловой системы?
подвижный сервер ожидает, что каталог репозиториев для сходства с файловой системой и (через Подвижный) использует обычные операции файловой системы, чтобы считать и записать им, но это не заботится, является ли это подлинный локальный диск, или например NFS монтируется.
I'm going to throw this down as an answer to my question, because it is, but I'm still interested in other solutions or more complete solutions.
The problem with this particular solution is essentially that it's not retroactive - so it's going to be very painful to correct the thousands of spreadsheets in existence which already have the printer settings saved to a .bin.
Anyway, the partial solution to this problem I've come up with so far is to add the below registry key and value:
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Office\14.0\Excel\Options]
"QFE_Sitka"=dword:00000001
Which I managed to extrapolate from this Microsoft KB, obviously altering the version number to the actual version of Excel that we use (version 14.0 == Office 2010).
Update:
The "complete" solution, since we can't get everyone to stop sending us Office 2007/2010 files with these crap attachments embedded in them (and I'm having trouble applying this registry setting to every Windows machine in the world) is the above hack, with some ungodly scripting to remove the .bin from our existing Office 2010 files for outbound email, coupled with a custom rule on our mail filter to (sigh) disable attachment blocks of .bin files when they're contained within an Office 2007/2010 archive filetype, for inbound email.
Seems like there's a wonderful exploit opportunity in there for malware authors to embed their payloads into a binary file inside an Office 2007/2010 document, and use a simple script or macro to execute... but that's a whole other problem for another day, I guess.
And, for what it's worth, I'll mark this as the accepted answer, since it's been 3 weeks, and I don't anticipate anyone coming along with a better answer... but I would be pleasantly surprised if someone stumbles across this and proves me wrong.