El 29 Jun 2004 a las 16:39, Ryan Moore escribi�:
> Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 04:21:09PM -0400, Ryan Moore wrote:
> >
> >>I guess what I'm wondering is that is SA not able/designed to recognize
> >>UUencoded attachments? If not, then I guess I should modify the
> >
> >
> > As an FYI: that's not a uuencoded _attachment_. "attachment" implies
> > a MIME part (and if you're doing mime, you'd use base64...) it's an
> > uuencoded inline file.
> >
> > SA doesn't do anything special with inline uuencoded parts, it just treats
> > it as message text. SA appropriately disregards binary MIME parts though.
> >
> > For more information, Bugzilla 3278 covered this a bit:
> > http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3278
> >
>
>
> Yea I just called it an attachment since Mozilla recognized it as an
> attachment for me, I'm not sure how it is treated officially speaking.
> I'll go ahead and modify the rulesets I have here though so they alone
> can't trip a message, Thanks.
When I was young, we called uuencoded files within a message 'attachments'
since that was the only way to 'attach' something in the pre-MIME era... in
fact uudecode was nice enough to skip your message and look for the 'begin'
line so you didn't have to clean up your message after saving it to disk...
--
Mariano Absatz
El Baby
----------------------------------------------------------
Everyone must believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink.
-- W.C. Fields
