Hi there,
I received some messages recently created with a version of Outlook.
They contained one attachment each (an RTF-file) with the content type
application/msword. Funny enough, TB trashed the attachment
immediately as the mails hit the mailbox. Only because I knew there
had to be one, I was able to open the mail directly on the server the
second time and save away the source.
Here are some relevant parts (I can't forward the whole thing, because
that was registration information in those attachments):
------------------------------- snip ---------------------------------
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0053_01C01EAD.8238A620"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
You are subscribed as : [email protected]
------=_NextPart_000_0053_01C01EAD.8238A620
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
------=_NextPart_000_0053_01C01EAD.8238A620
Content-Type: application/msword;
name="C:\Files\Docs\RegInfo1.rtf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="C:\Files\Docs\RegInfo1.rtf"
{\rtf1\ansi\deff0
{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0 Times New Roman;}{\f1\fnil\fcharset0 =
----------------------[ rest of RTF file cut ]------------------------
------=_NextPart_000_0053_01C01EAD.8238A620--
------------------------------- snip ---------------------------------
The interesting thing is IMHO that the whole path to the file that was
originally attached is mentioned in the "name" and "filename" tags.
But TB should definitely not be deleting the thing unseen just because
of a little compliance problem... What's more, I was able to open the
same mail directly from the server (dispatch mail on server ...) and
the attachment was visible. It was shown by the name of
"C:FilesDocsRegInfo1.rtf", though.
Questions are: Is the format used in that mail even RFC-compliant? Even
if it's not, do you agree it's still in bug in TB?
Thanks!
Oliver Sturm
--
Always proofread carefully in case you something out.
--
Oliver Sturm / <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Key ID: 71D86996
Fingerprint: 8085 5C52 60B8 EFBD DAD0 78B8 CE7F 38D7 71D8 6996
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
