yep On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Owen Jacobson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 2017, at 2:22 AM, omd <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Owen Jacobson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Is it possible to configure Mailman to pass through messages with > text/html parts but to strip them, instead of rejecting them outright? > > > > Well, that's odd. According to the logs, you had two messages > > rejected with the message "The message's content type was not > > explicitly allowed". Looking at the Mailman code, it seems you only > > get that error if the *outer* message content type doesn't match the > > whitelist, as opposed to one part of a MIME multipart/alternative > > message. By contrast, with the "test" message I just sent - which I > > composed as a rich-text message - Gmail encoded it as multipart with > > text/plain and text/html parts, and Mailman discarded the text/html > > part and let it through. > > > > I guess you probably sent a pure text/html message with no text/plain > > alternative. Mailman is capable of forcibly converting those to > > text/plain (probably badly), but for some reason that happens after > > the whitelist check… > > > > Well, I just disabled the whitelist altogether, while keeping the > > "collapse multipart/alternative" and "convert text/html to plaintext" > > options enabled. I think that should mostly do the right thing: I > > don't see any particular reason to ban attachments in general, so > > there's no need to special-case signatures. > > I’m sending this in whatever mail.app considers to be its default > configuration, plus GPGTools signature. Let’s see if it makes it through. > -- >From V.J. Rada
