Need a little more info on this... Which (if any) of the following cases do you mean?
1. Resending an existing message that's had a legitimate attachment deleted. 2. Resending an existing message that's been doctored to look like an attachment was deleted (an attachment that was never present in the message). 3. Sending a new message that's been doctored to look like an attachment was deleted (an attachment that was never present in the message)? Someone could doctor an existing message by hand, by manually editting the mailbox file. They could doctor it to look like anything they wanted it to look like. It wouldn't be any fault on Mozilla's part though if they do so. Someone could also doctor the body and attachments of a new message by hand, before sending it, although AFAICT they wouldn't be able to doctor the headers to be consistent with this (if something like an X-Mozilla-Altered header winds up being used to indicate internally that an attachment has been deleted); so in this case the user would not be able to completely doctor the message, only partly. I tried it myself, and I wasn't able to force the extra header info into the sent message. Generally speaking, I'm not sure what does and does not constitute a security violation when sending and storing e-mail. I've been relying on the knowledge of others to help avoid situations that would cause security violations. I might not be able to answer that part of your question myself. But AFAIK if someone doctors a message by hand, it's not Mozilla's fault if that causes a security violation. It would only be Mozilla's fault, and hence something that may need to be avoided in the code base, if a security violation could occur without the message having been doctored by hand. -- Matt Coughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] <remove "sp4mless_" from the e-mail address to reply>
