On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 09:57:09AM -0500, David T-G wrote: > 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. > >
Fair enough, in that case: it *was* down to her corporate virus scanner, because when I sent that reply, I got a message back saying that my attatchment had been removed and would not be delivered to its destination. Sorry for the confusion. - Paul -- Paul Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
