On Tuesday 19 March 2002 03:02 pm, dman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 02:34:23PM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> | On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Daniel Rogers wrote:
> | > I guess this would mean having to recurse through all the mime parts?
> | Yes. This is now bugzilla #115.
> Does perl not have an
On 19 March 2002, Craig Hughes said:
> I think this is a more substantial problem than that which requires a
> bit more work. Thanks for the patch though. I've made a note in
> bugzilla #115 about my intention to incorporate MIME::Tools for doing a
> lot of the hard work for us. We should be ab
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 02:58:52PM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> I think this is a more substantial problem than that which requires a
> bit more work. Thanks for the patch though. I've made a note in
> bugzilla #115 about my intention to incorporate MIME::Tools for doing a
> lot of the hard work
I think this is a more substantial problem than that which requires a
bit more work. Thanks for the patch though. I've made a note in
bugzilla #115 about my intention to incorporate MIME::Tools for doing a
lot of the hard work for us. We should be able to easily knock out
several bugs by doing
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 02:34:23PM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
| On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Daniel Rogers wrote:
|
| > I guess this would mean having to recurse through all the mime parts?
|
| Yes. This is now bugzilla #115.
Does perl not have an existing (stable) library to do all of the dirty
work
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 03:32:34PM -0700, Nels Lindquist wrote:
> I posted a couple of messages about problems with base64 encoding
> back in January and didn't get a single reply, not even a pointer to
> the buglist.
I just fixed some of this (at least the first part, and probably the second
t
On 19 Mar 2002 at 14:19, Craig Hughes wrote:
> First step towards being on top of the bug list is being on the buglist
> at all -- and the first step towards being on the buglist is for the
> person who identifies a bug to enter it on the buglist.
>
> http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/
>
> C
>
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Daniel Rogers wrote:
> I guess this would mean having to recurse through all the mime parts?
Yes. This is now bugzilla #115.
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spama
First step towards being on top of the bug list is being on the buglist
at all -- and the first step towards being on the buglist is for the
person who identifies a bug to enter it on the buglist.
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/
C
On Tue, 2002-03-19 at 10:03, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Tue, 19
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 01:45:40PM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> This looks like it fixes the base64 decoder, but it remains the case that
> a MIME structure of the form
>
> mutipart/anything
> multipart/anything
> text/anything
> anything/anything c-t-e:base64
>
> will cause get_decoded_bo
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Daniel Rogers wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 10:03:25AM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> > It never occurred to me that SpamAssassin could lack a proper MIME parser.
> > Any nested multipart containing a base64'd sub-part can totally defeat all
> > body checks, and even if t
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 10:03:25AM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> It never occurred to me that SpamAssassin could lack a proper MIME parser.
> Any nested multipart containing a base64'd sub-part can totally defeat all
> body checks, and even if there's only one level of multipart the base64
> dec
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 10:03:25AM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> It never occurred to me that SpamAssassin could lack a proper MIME parser.
> Any nested multipart containing a base64'd sub-part can totally defeat all
> body checks, and even if there's only one level of multipart the base64
> dec
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> SA should apply body tests to any text parts within a multipart/related.
I just looked at the source of PerMsgStatus.pm for the first time ...
It never occurred to me that SpamAssassin could lack a proper MIME parser.
Any nested multipart containing
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> The most recent example also included in the HTML part a "click here" link
> which for some reason did not trigger the CLICK_HERE_LINK rule. Could
> this be because the HTML part had "Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary"?
Stepping through with "perl -d
15 matches
Mail list logo
