Re: Discourage broken content

2006-09-01 Thread jdow
From: "Kris Deugau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Andersen wrote: Mailscanner ... or any other mail-handling software... has no business changing content. ... unless you explicitly configure it to do so. (ATTN: AVG for Windows POP3/SMTP interface/hook authors, This Means You! Among others.)

Re: Discourage broken content

2006-08-31 Thread Kris Deugau
John Andersen wrote: Mailscanner ... or any other mail-handling software... has no business changing content. ... unless you explicitly configure it to do so. (ATTN: AVG for Windows POP3/SMTP interface/hook authors, This Means You! Among others.) -kgd

Re: Discourage broken content

2006-08-29 Thread Kenneth Porter
--On Tuesday, August 29, 2006 9:58 AM +0100 Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm sure they know this -- but there are dangers there too. It's pretty trivial in HTML to craft a MIME part that contains 100 KB of innocent-looking HTML, followed by 4 KB of spam payload, where the payload is

Re: Discourage broken content

2006-08-29 Thread Kenneth Porter
--On Tuesday, August 29, 2006 9:41 AM +0100 Anthony Peacock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This issue is currently being discussed on the MailScanner users list, under the Subject "Max SpamAssassin Size problems". Which can be found here:

Re: Discourage broken content

2006-08-29 Thread Anthony Peacock
Justin Mason wrote: Anthony Peacock writes: Rick Cooper wrote: From: decoder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 4:23 PM To: Rick Cooper Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: Discourage broken content -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Rick Cooper

Re: Discourage broken content

2006-08-29 Thread Justin Mason
Anthony Peacock writes: > Rick Cooper wrote: > >> From: decoder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 4:23 PM > >> To: Rick Cooper > >> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: Discourage broken content > >&g

Re: Discourage broken content

2006-08-29 Thread Anthony Peacock
Rick Cooper wrote: -Original Message- From: decoder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 4:23 PM To: Rick Cooper Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: Discourage broken content -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Rick Cooper wrote

RE: Discourage broken content

2006-08-25 Thread Rick Cooper
> -Original Message- > From: John Andersen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 4:20 PM > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: Discourage broken content > > > On Friday 25 August 2006 12:10, Rick Cooper wrote: > > That is pat

RE: Discourage broken content

2006-08-25 Thread Rick Cooper
> -Original Message- > From: decoder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 4:23 PM > To: Rick Cooper > Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: Discourage broken content > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Ha

Re: Discourage broken content

2006-08-25 Thread decoder
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Rick Cooper wrote: > >> -Original Message- From: decoder >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:24 >> PM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: Discourage >> broken content >> &g

Re: Discourage broken content

2006-08-25 Thread John Andersen
On Friday 25 August 2006 12:10, Rick Cooper wrote: > That is patently false. I have a graphics design/advertising department at > one of my locations and these fellas send huge graphics files back and > forth when they have emergency proofs/changes and MailScanner has *never* > damaged anything, ev

RE: Discourage broken content

2006-08-25 Thread Rick Cooper
> -Original Message- > From: decoder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:24 PM > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: Discourage broken content > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Kenneth Porter

Re: Discourage broken content (was: Broken images in mails)

2006-08-25 Thread John Andersen
On Friday 25 August 2006 11:40, Kash, Howard (Civ, ARL/CISD) wrote: > > Yes, by definition, it DOES mean its broken. > > So when then giftext author made an error in assuming every image would > have a global colormap, he redefined the GIF specification so that any > that don't are no longer valid?

Re: Discourage broken content

2006-08-25 Thread decoder
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Logan Shaw wrote: > On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, enediel gonzalez wrote: >>> From: decoder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kenneth Porter wrote: > >>> I completely agree, the problem is, some implementations makes >>> this impossible. For example MailScanner. >>> >>> I've

Re: Discourage broken content

2006-08-25 Thread Logan Shaw
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, enediel gonzalez wrote: From: decoder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kenneth Porter wrote: I completely agree, the problem is, some implementations makes this impossible. For example MailScanner. I've heard that it truncates the mail at 30kb, no matter if that is within a MIME block

RE: Discourage broken content

2006-08-25 Thread Kash, Howard \(Civ, ARL/CISD\)
> Could somebody explain to me the reason why MailScanner acts this way? > A good question could be decide if you adapt this plugin to be compatible > with MailScanner or tha last one should change this practice. As a resource/denial of service protection mechanism. If someone starts feeding yo

RE: Discourage broken content (was: Broken images in mails)

2006-08-25 Thread Kash, Howard \(Civ, ARL/CISD\)
> Yes, by definition, it DOES mean its broken. So when then giftext author made an error in assuming every image would have a global colormap, he redefined the GIF specification so that any that don't are no longer valid? Howard

Re: Discourage broken content (was: Broken images in mails)

2006-08-25 Thread John Andersen
On Friday 25 August 2006 11:33, Kash, Howard (Civ, ARL/CISD) wrote: > > I think we should discourage all broken content in email and on the > > web. > > But who is to decide what is "broken". Just because > giftext/giffix/gocr/etc. fail to parse it, doesn't necessarily mean it's > broken. Yes,

RE: Discourage broken content (was: Broken images in mails)

2006-08-25 Thread Kash, Howard \(Civ, ARL/CISD\)
> I think we should discourage all broken content in email and on the web. But who is to decide what is "broken". Just because giftext/giffix/gocr/etc. fail to parse it, doesn't necessarily mean it's broken. The software may be buggy (note the patches on the download page needed to make these

Re: Discourage broken content

2006-08-25 Thread enediel gonzalez
From: decoder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: Discourage broken content Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 21:24:14 +0200 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Kenneth Porter wrote: > --On Friday, August 25, 2006 12:05 AM -0700 Plenz > <[EMAIL PR

Re: Discourage broken content

2006-08-25 Thread John Andersen
On Friday 25 August 2006 11:24, decoder wrote: > I've heard that it truncates the mail at 30kb, no matter if that is > within a MIME block or not... So my plugin gets a broken image.. > though it was not broken originally... How better to get that fixed than to put them on notice, and start taggin

Re: Discourage broken content (was: Broken images in mails)

2006-08-25 Thread John Andersen
On Friday 25 August 2006 11:20, Kenneth Porter wrote: > We need to stop giving a free pass to broken content creation software just > because it's popular. When someone sends you broken content, you should > react the same way you would if they sent you documents on dirt-smeared > paper. Stop lett

Re: Discourage broken content

2006-08-25 Thread decoder
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Kenneth Porter wrote: > --On Friday, August 25, 2006 12:05 AM -0700 Plenz > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I disagree. To check out what happens I converted a JPG picture >> into a GIF >> file >> and sent it to myself. One time I converted it with Irf