On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 10:31, Andi Payn wrote: > On Tuesday 22 July 2003 00:30, Dave Cotton wrote: > > Does this mean MIME-defang works? > > Apparently. > > But is it possible to configure it to move all that text except the first > sentence to the end of the message? It's a bit annoying to have to scroll > through 40-odd lines of wordy warnings to get to the 10-line message. > > Also, what exactly did MIME-defang do in this case? As a guess, it seems to > have converted text/plain attachments with useful names into > application/octet-stream attachments with meaningless names, apparently > without changing the content at all. Which means that you have to skim the > warnings to figure out which file is which--and, at least for kmail users, > that they open in kwrite instead of in your default text editor (or inline, > or in the built-in text viewer). What is this protecting us from? > > Finally, it's a bit strange to say, "... if you were not expecting a file of > this type..." and never mention what type the file originally was. Couldn't > MIME-defang say, "An attachment named 'foo' of type 'mime/type' was > converted..."?
The problem I've had is that I've got Spamassassin in place and I get about 2 spams a day and it traps them. Amavisd-new / sophie / sophos cooked off once in the past two months with a virus attachment. This is the very first time I've ever seen something that triggered MIME-defang, and I agree with you the report is pretty obtuse, add to that that I work in France I can imagine a host of calls for translation. Perhaps the most important thing is that it would have changed a .bat or .pif file to something equally as useless to Windows and may save some unfortunate soul. -- Dave Cotton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
