Paul, et al -- -- ...and then Paul Roberts Student lab engineer said... % On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 08:23:48AM -0500, David T-G wrote: % > Angelika -- ... % > % Sorry for my writing before thinking. I really thought there % > % were great danger ... % > % > No problem :-) % > % > I'm curious: why did your version of mutt come up with the descriptive % > string you show above? I only saw his signature, and I see nothing to % > indicate that it is an attachment... % % It was encoded using the old-style UUENCODE. If you pipe the mail
No, I know that bit (actually, it wasn't; it only had a valid-looking begin line). % through uudecode, it should pick it up. Angelika must have a setup % which recognises this. That's what I want to know. If it was replaced by her corporate virus scanner then 1) it doesn't matter to me and 2) no wonder she thought it was dangerous, because she never even saw the item. If, on the other hand, it's a mutt (or even procmail) configuration, I want to know how to do it. % % - Paul % % -- % Paul Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/ Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
msg21252/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
