On 9 Jan 2018, at 13:47 (-0500), Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
this is a real duplicity...
Semantic note: "duplication" or "redundancy," NOT "duplicity," which is
English for the flavor of dishonesty involving contradictory statements.
--
Bill Cole
b...@scconsult.com or
On 09.01.18 10:56, Joseph Brennan wrote:
Both FSL_MIME_NO_TEXT and MIME_NO_TEXT are very similar. Both look for a
multipart/mixed message with no "text/" part that has an attachment.
Combined score is just under 5. That's a lot.
Comments?
On 09.01.18 19:43, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
meta
On 09.01.18 10:56, Joseph Brennan wrote:
Both FSL_MIME_NO_TEXT and MIME_NO_TEXT are very similar. Both look for a
multipart/mixed message with no "text/" part that has an attachment.
Combined score is just under 5. That's a lot.
Comments?
meta FSL_MIME_NO_TEXT (__CTYPE_MULTIPART_MIXED &&
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 10:56:19 -0500
Joseph Brennan wrote:
> Both FSL_MIME_NO_TEXT and MIME_NO_TEXT are very similar. Both look
> for a multipart/mixed message with no "text/" part that has an
> attachment. Combined score is just under 5. That's a lot.
>
> The case in point is an application that
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, Kris Deugau wrote:
Joseph Brennan wrote:
The case in point is an application that sends a report to a few people as
a plain text document, and the only mime part is the attachment, which is
called application/octet-stream and has a .txt file extension. I feel like
this
Joseph Brennan wrote:
The case in point is an application that sends a report to a few people
as a plain text document, and the only mime part is the attachment,
which is called application/octet-stream and has a .txt file extension.
I feel like this should count in __ANY_TEXT_ATTACH.
(I'm
