At Mon Jan 6 15:42:32 2003, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
> could be altered to that:
>
> M(F)IM(])E-(*/
> *)V(y)e(7)r(*)s(U*0)i(*LZ)o(H)n(.):(l)
> 1(:*=).0
> Content-Type: mul(26)t(fH*)ip(|*)a(***)rt(*)/
> mi(/*j)x(8)e('M)d;
> (<|)bo(*,)u(1**)nda(D)r(L+K)y=TFICLMGJ
>
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 the voices made Ray Dzek write:
RD> Umm...Since this thread started on another list, could somebody please
RD> explain, in english, the significance of the munged header?
Just reread the first one to this list, it was by me and it included the URL
to the story.
The significa
Monday, January 06, 2003 10:08 AM
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] MIME-headers with comments in them
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony L. Svanstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 06 January 2003 15:43
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] MIME-he
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 the voices made Tony Hoyle write:
TH> I'm more worried about what happens when a virus starts using this - how
TH> many mailers
TH> are able to block executable attachments when the mime data is munged this
TH> badly?
What really worries me is what happens when people start re
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony L. Svanstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 06 January 2003 15:43
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] MIME-headers with comments in them
>
>
> Any bets on how long it'll take before som
(Somewhat stolen from a posting by [EMAIL PROTECTED] to the procmail-list)
http://www.virusbtn.com/resources/viruses/indepth/junkmail.xml >
a header like that:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary=TFICLMGJ
could be altered to that:
-
