Re[2]: note: Re(2); Scan on attachment name?

2003-08-22 Thread daniel hahler
on Thu, 21 Aug 2003 22:37:03 -0500 Jonathan Angliss wrote: How come your message didn't thread? I looked at the source and couldn't find a References header. I know TB generates it. Been playing? JA Notice there is a Resent-From header? It looks like he'd sent it, JA but for some reason it'd

Re[2]: Scan on attachment name?

2003-08-21 Thread daniel hahler
on Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:02:01 -0500 Jonathan Angliss wrote: You can scan for the presence of the found to be clean (or something) Header that the virus adds when sending mail, plus the absence of a message-ID... thats the virus. JA You cannot really guarantee that. Some MTAs add their own

note: Re(2); Scan on attachment name?

2003-08-21 Thread daniel hahler
on Thu, 21 Aug 2003 21:40:27 +0200 I already wrote to you: but somehow GMX or someone else has done sth, as I didn't get any new the last hour..?! | Actions: faDelServer,faoRegExp,faFlag,faoHotKey,faoAdvIsAttach,faoAdvLarger guess, this is the faDelServer action. I thought, it would first

Re: note: Re(2); Scan on attachment name?

2003-08-21 Thread Thomas Fernandez
Hello daniel, On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 22:52:37 +0200 (MEST) GMT (22/08/2003, 03:52 +0700 GMT), daniel hahler wrote: but somehow GMX or someone else has done sth, as I didn't get any new the last hour..?! | Actions: faDelServer,faoRegExp,faFlag,faoHotKey,faoAdvIsAttach,faoAdvLarger guess, this is

Re: note: Re(2); Scan on attachment name?

2003-08-21 Thread Jonathan Angliss
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday, August 21, 2003, Thomas Fernandez wrote... How come your message didn't thread? I looked at the source and couldn't find a References header. I know TB generates it. Been playing? Notice there is a Resent-From header? It looks like