On 2018-02-23 (02:15 MST), saqariden wrote:
>
> our mailing service is not for external use, So the users are not supposed to
> send or receive B64 encoded mails.
I've never seen anyone *intentionally* sent base64 mails (I mean, people, not
spammers). That is a decision made by the MUA. Sounds
On 22/02/2018 17:48, RW wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:35:48 -0600 (CST)
David B Funk wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018, RW wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 15:54:45 +0100
saqariden wrote:
Hello guys,
I have the following SA rule which is supposed to block base64
encoded mails:
This may be dangerou
On 2018-02-22 (07:54 MST), saqariden wrote:
>
> I have the following SA rule which is supposed to block base64 encoded mails:
Wow. You are going to block a lot of legitimate email that way.
> bodyEN_BASE64_B/(Content-Transfer-Encoding:
> base64\sContent-Type: text\/(pl
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:35:48 -0600 (CST)
David B Funk wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2018, RW wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 15:54:45 +0100
> > saqariden wrote:
> >
> >> Hello guys,
> >>
> >> I have the following SA rule which is supposed to block base64
> >> encoded mails:
> >
> > This may be dan
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018, RW wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 15:54:45 +0100
saqariden wrote:
Hello guys,
I have the following SA rule which is supposed to block base64
encoded mails:
This may be dangerous. If someone doesn't wish to use 8bit text then
base64 encoding of UTF-8 is a sensible choice; Q
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 15:54:45 +0100
saqariden wrote:
> Hello guys,
>
> I have the following SA rule which is supposed to block base64
> encoded mails:
This may be dangerous. If someone doesn't wish to use 8bit text then
base64 encoding of UTF-8 is a sensible choice; QP is very inefficient
unless
