On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 16:31 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
be careful with rewrite mailbody
this will break all sorts of signed mails
Though that problem exists, anyway, even if you do nothing. Because
mail comes to you through more than one server, any of which may
transform an email in transit.
On 20 January 2012 19:48, g gel...@bellsouth.net wrote:
On 01/20/2012 10:48 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
Don't know why you conclude that, spam links can have a short lifetime
as they get shut down.
-=-
i must be smoking something stronger than you. B=D
i do not recall, nor see where i made
g:
} X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 (2.22.3.1-1.fc9)
dose Evolution convert 'base64' to 'text' during view source?
I wouldn't think any mailer would do so. That wouldn't be viewing the
source, or raw message, under those circumstances. The normal mail
viewer would, it's job is to show you the
On Sat, 2012-01-21 at 13:07 +, Ian Malone wrote:
Base64 expands (necessarily since it tries to represent full octets
with a subset), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base64#MIME there isn't
much of a rationale for using it in email text (though encoding is
required for binary attachments), its
On 21 January 2012 14:10, Tim ignored_mail...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On Sat, 2012-01-21 at 13:07 +, Ian Malone wrote:
Base64 expands (necessarily since it tries to represent full octets
with a subset), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base64#MIME there isn't
much of a rationale for using it in
g wrote:
viewing source, header can be read, but not able to read body
because of 'base64'.
For what it’s worth, you can read base64 encoded text by piping it to
openssl enc -d -base64
James
--
E-mail: james@ | You can accept the existence of rain without denying the
aprilcottage.co.uk
On 19 January 2012 22:09, g gel...@bellsouth.net wrote:
On 01/19/2012 12:56 PM, Tim wrote:
On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 03:52 +, g wrote:
but the (obvious) spam (simply by looking at the list of recipients)
this is true. because it was sent to a 'tsl' also.
viewing source, header can be
Tim:
you replied to was not received as base64 encoded, here.
g:
that is because it has enigmail sig. note source of this post.
My point was that the spam that you were complaining about as an example
of why you don't like base64 was *not* base64 encoded (the original spam
mail, not your
Am 20.01.2012 16:18, schrieb Tim:
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by mailserver.lan.example.com
If I can get the message /as text/, then so you can you, one way or
another. And your problem (I think it was you that asked about
converting mail, last week), about using tools to
On 01/20/2012 03:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
be careful with rewrite mailbody this will break all sorts of
signed mails
-=-
and, as you know, thunderbird gives you a friendly notification banner.
--
peace out.
tc.hago,
g
.
*please reply plain text only. html text are deleted*
On 01/20/2012 03:18 PM, Tim wrote:
Tim:
you replied to was not received as base64 encoded, here.
g:
that is because it has enigmail sig. note source of this post.
My point was that the spam that you were complaining about as an example
of why you don't like base64 was *not* base64
On 01/20/2012 10:48 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
Don't know why you conclude that, spam links can have a short lifetime
as they get shut down.
-=-
i must be smoking something stronger than you. B=D
i do not recall, nor see where i made such statement, or imply.
FWIW I do agree base64 is an
Am 20.01.2012 20:47, schrieb g:
On 01/20/2012 03:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
be careful with rewrite mailbody this will break all sorts of
signed mails
-=-
and, as you know, thunderbird gives you a friendly notification banner
and what does this change?
if something BEFORE the
On 01/20/2012 07:51 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 20.01.2012 20:47, schrieb g:
On 01/20/2012 03:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
be careful with rewrite mailbody this will break all sorts of
signed mails
-=-
and, as you know, thunderbird gives you a friendly notification banner
and what
On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 03:52 +, g wrote:
NISM ??
I have no idea what that abbreviation refers to, but the (obvious) spam
(simply by looking at the list of recipients) you replied to was not
received as base64 encoded, here.
Nor should it really be a problem. Only the most ancient or
On 01/19/2012 12:56 PM, Tim wrote:
On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 03:52 +, g wrote:
NISM ??
I have no idea what that abbreviation refers to,
-=-
NISM = Need I Say More
but the (obvious) spam (simply by looking at the list of recipients)
-=-
this is true. because it was sent to a 'tsl' also.
On 01/18/2012 11:32 PM, Hesty P wrote:
http://dirtydeez.com/images/thumbs/12betui.htm
-=-
NISM ??
--
peace out.
tc.hago,
g
.
*please reply text/plain only. text/html deleted*
*install Linux* /to/ _learn linux_
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
users mailing
17 matches
Mail list logo
