On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 07:25:28AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > ...and then Dave Smith said... > % > % Hi all. I need some help. > > Hello!
Hello... :-) > % particular scanner communicates its result by adding an extra text/plain > % attachment to the top of the mail. AIUI, this violates the PGP/MIME RFC, > % and most certainly breaks mutt. > > ... I might not! Let me guess: are they a windows shop? Not sure. We're a *big* company, and I guess that the virus scanner is probably implemented at the main corporate IT internet connection point over in France. The problem is that mutt is non-standard (Netscape is the standard...), and signed/encrypted mail is virtually unheard of, so any complaints are likely to fall on deaf ears (one employee in ~50k isn't very loud...). Our local mailserver is Solaris, but I don't think that's the culprit. Like many engineering companies, the managers use Windows, and us engineers use real computers. > Yes, that's definitely a no-no. They should add anything they want into > the headers and leave the body alone. This is now the second thing they've broken - the mail system also base-64 encodes the contents of all encrypted mails... Grrr. > % # From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hey, I'm famous! ;-) <g> Yours was the first I came across... > % Can anyone think of a solution other than fetch/procmail (I'd like to keep > % my mail on the imap server if possible), or chainging the MTA setup? > > I suppose "rape, pillage, and burn" is not an appropriate course of > action... It's tempting... > There's always hope, though. Check out the scanner itself; if > it can be twiddled to write to the headers instead of the body, then > maybe you can convince management or your IT department. I've already suggested this, but like I said, I don't have direct access to the machine performing the scan. > If the scanner checks all mail, and not just mail from the 'net, then > start signing all of your mail (if you aren't already, and shame on you > if you aren't!) and politely explain exactly why it looks bad on the > receiver's end, perhaps with a copy to said management or IT department. I think it only scans external mail, but I haven't tested it. It certainly only scans MIME-encoded mails. > Can you put procmail in line on the IMAP server? If we assume that the > email will be broken and there's nothing we can do about it, that seems > like the most reasonable approach. No access to IMAP server (other than standard IMAP client connection). :-( > Would something like isync(?) let you suck the mail down from its landing > mailbox, procmail it locally, and then put it back up in a real mailbox? > > You could implement a really ugly wrapper script that takes the mail, > finds and (after ensuring that it *is* the bogus stuff placed by the > scanner, of course) tosses the first attachment, and *then* hands the > message to gpg for verification. It certainly would get the bad > attachment out of the way, even if it is inelegant. I think that the most likely solution is going to be to use fetch/procmail to move my entire mailbox to my home account. It's something I'd like to avoid, however. > % Unsigned replies would be appreciated... > > Just for you -- and just this once! You can sign it if you like, it just won't get read... <g> -- David Smith | Tel: +44 (0)1454 462380 Home: +44 (0)1454 616963 STMicroelectronics | Fax: +44 (0)1454 617910 Mobile: +44 (0)7932 642724 1000 Aztec West | TINA: 065 2380 Almondsbury | Work Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] BRISTOL, BS32 4SQ | Home Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
