Micheal Espinola Jr wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, That TNEF stuff. Bah!
I haven't had a chance to verify it yet, but my thoughts exactly. Being
an Exchange/Outlook admin, I cant beleive that I neglected to add .dat
to my allowed attachments list!
Shame on me! :-)
Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
assp-user@lists.sourceforge.net schreibt:
sniff..sniffI smell a wiki article!
ASSP will always add now dat to the allowed attachment if level 4 is
selected.
-
On 23 Dec 2006 at 19:13, Micheal Espinola Jr wrote:
Depending on the sending client (most likely Outlook or Outlook Express
on the Windows platform), each recipient could have individual TNEF or
RTF requirement settings - which can cause a Winmail.dat file to be
attached for that recipient.
On 23 Dec 2006 at 19:02, Micheal Espinola Jr wrote:
I haven't had a chance to verify it yet, but my thoughts exactly. Being
an Exchange/Outlook admin, I cant beleive that I neglected to add .dat
to my allowed attachments list!
Shame on me! :-)
Didn't occur to me, but then I don't use the
On 22 Dec 2006 at 11:43, Micheal Espinola Jr wrote:
The email is quite typical.
Does the recipient address match any re or list in the config?
paul
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join
Does the recipient address match any re or list in the config?
I think we found the problem. ASSP did the right thing to see an
attachment, which was not allowed. Winmail.dat is generated by MS
Exchange if the recipient can not understand RTF.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/138053
On 23 Dec 2006 at 13:13, Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
Ah, That TNEF stuff. Bah!
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does the recipient address match any re or list in the config?
No.
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
I think we found the problem. ASSP did the right thing to see an
attachment, which was not allowed. Winmail.dat is generated by MS
Exchange if the recipient can not understand RTF.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/138053
(catching up after having been away)
Yes, that
Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
Does the recipient address match any re or list in the config?
I think we found the problem. ASSP did the right thing to see an
attachment, which was not allowed. Winmail.dat is generated by MS
Exchange if the recipient can not understand RTF.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, That TNEF stuff. Bah!
I haven't had a chance to verify it yet, but my thoughts exactly. Being
an Exchange/Outlook admin, I cant beleive that I neglected to add .dat
to my allowed attachments list!
Shame on me! :-)
Dave Emory wrote:
So if there's not a bug, why did this message only fail to make it through
the ASSP proxy when there were multiple recipients?
Depending on the sending client (most likely Outlook or Outlook Express
on the Windows platform), each recipient could have individual TNEF or
RTF
Tony Mountifield wrote:
Does it only occur with one particular message (content), or with any
message using that combination of From, To and Cc?
Variations on the content don't seem to matter, although a good chunk of
the message is legal boilerplate - none of which seems to be matching
The rejection is a bad
attachment message, although there is no attachment
At least, its html.
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
Just another ASSP newcomer (but long-time perl programmer) joining
in with the brainstorm, because it's a fascinatingly bizarre problem.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Micheal Espinola Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
The bad attachment rejecting is only occurring with one
Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
At least, its html.
Thats true. But the same exact message sent only to the (problem)
recipient goes through fine.
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's
Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
The bad attachment rejecting is only occurring with one
particular recipient when sent from one particular sender.
To clarify, it seems that the bad attachment rejection is only
occurring with one (problem) recipient when sent from one particular
sender, and only
Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
assp-user@lists.sourceforge.net schreibt:
What do you have set for BlockWLExes (Whitelisted Local Attachment
Blocking)?
I remember 4.
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash.
Eric B. wrote:
Have you tried giving this user an alias and sending to the alias instead?
Thats a good idea. I will try that next.
If this is the only address in the To/CC recipients, is that problem still
persistent as well? Does the origininating MTA of the email matter? Or the
Wim Borghs wrote:
What do you have set for BlockWLExes (Whitelisted Local Attachment
Blocking)?
4. I currently have BlockExes, ./#BlockExesBlockWLExes, and
./#BlockWLExesBlockNPExes set to 4.
./#BlockNPExes
-
Take
Eric B. wrote:
If this is the only address in the To/CC recipients, is that problem still
persistent as well?
When the user is the only recipient, they receive the message.
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future
The bad attachment rejecting is only occurring with one
particular recipient when sent from one particular sender.
may be there is a match in the source of the mail with this:
content-\\w+:.*\\s+.*name\\s*=\\s*.*\\.(.{0,20})|content-\\w+:.*\\s+.*name\\s*=\\s*.*\\.(.{0,20})\\s]
Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
the problem here is, i have no idea (((
As crazy as this may sound, the problem seems to be specific to a single
email address. I have tried moving the email address between the TO and
the CC, placing it both first and last - and it still gets rejected with
an attachment
Micheal Espinola Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
the problem here is, i have no idea (((
As crazy as this may sound, the problem seems to be specific to a single
email address. I have tried moving the email address between the TO and
the
Eric B. wrote:
Is there a possibility that the one particular email address to which you
are sending is blocking the attachment on the receiving side? If I remember
correctly, you are routing outgoing mail through a relay server; are you
able to verify the outgoing email logs (I don't
Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
1: Must be in the name of this address, really. Remember we do
positive attachment checking, that means, i cannot simple say, this
attachmenttype is not there - block. i have to find out, if there is
an attachment.
But that would not explain why we get the double
Eric B. wrote:
Just another thought that just came up... have you tried this address as a
bcc instead? Or is this confined specifically when cc'ed?
This has happened with the address in the TO and the CC, but I have not
experimented with the BCC. Also, the order of multiple addresses in the
This has happened with the address in the TO and the CC, but I have
not
experimented with the BCC. Also, the order of multiple addresses in
the
TO or CC has not had an effect, as that one particular address gets
the
[AttachmentError] NDR.
so this address get *always* an attachment error if it
Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
please try (39), i am not sure, if i found something.
Fixed! But, there is still a logging issue: The logs still say that
user2 was sent a bad attachment, but I have confirmed that user2 did
indeed receive the email that they were CC'd on.
--
Dec-19-06 12:10:57
Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
please try (39), i am not sure, if i found something.
I'm still waiting on test e-mails from the original sender to recreate
the exact circumstance of when the issue occurs. In the mean time, here
is something interesting:
Prior to the upgrade (39/40), I had the original
Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
Ok, last try (42). If not fixed, i will remove the feature.
1.2.7(42) failed to allow the attachment through to the CC user, even
though the TO recipient and I received a copy (I was also a CC). My
next test to isolate the problem is going to be having my address
I'm not sure what you are asking. I haven't seen any other issues in
my
testing besides this one.
you startet the new problem as an answer to this:
In my view yes. The current built is (37). But today we got a report
that there is serious trouble with 1.2.7. I cannot reproduce that, so
I am
Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
He should do a new try and set uribl to off. I am here in an problem,
besides this rather bizarre bug with cc, 1.2.7 is really worthwhile
for publishing.
If that's the case, and you don't think its worth the time
troubleshooting the Attachment Allow CC issue right now,
ASSP http://assp.sourceforge.net v1.2.7(29)
The primary (to:) recipient received the message fine. The cc'd
recipient does not receive the message. ASSP sends the
[AttachmentError] message to the sender because of what it thinks was a
bad attachment. /There was no attachment in the original
Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
the cc is done by ccallspam?
no, the cc in this case is an intended recipient.
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to
The primary (to:) recipient received the message fine. The cc'd
recipient does not receive the message. ASSP sends the
[AttachmentError] message to the sender because of what it thinks was
a
bad attachment. /There was no attachment in the original message./
please try (39), i am not sure, if
Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
please try (39), i am not sure, if i found something.
Will do, thanks. It's late in the day here, so I may not be able to
perform a test with the outside sender until tomorrow morning.
-
Take
37 matches
Mail list logo
