On 3/31/2016 6:33 PM, RW wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:56:21 -0400
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 3/31/2016 1:34 PM, RW wrote:
They have something like:
Content-Type: text; charset="utf-8"
rather than
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I think you found a bug in sendmail (or so
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016, RW wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:56:21 -0400
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 3/31/2016 1:34 PM, RW wrote:
They have something like:
Content-Type: text; charset="utf-8"
rather than
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I think you found a bug in sendmail (or som
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:56:21 -0400
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 3/31/2016 1:34 PM, RW wrote:
> >
> > They have something like:
> >
> >Content-Type: text; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > rather than
> >
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
>
> I think you found a bug in sendmail (or so
On 3/31/2016 1:34 PM, RW wrote:
They have something like:
Content-Type: text; charset="utf-8"
rather than
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
It's probably a rare mistake, but I was thinking of a rule like:
header __MISSING_SUBTYPE_1 Content-Type =~ /^\w+[;\s]/
mimehead
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016, RW wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 08:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
I don't follow what you're saying, can you provide an example?
They have something like:
Content-Type: text; charset="utf-8"
rather than
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
It's probably a
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 08:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016, RW wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
> > John Hardin wrote:
> >
> >> MIME_NO_TEXT is a *very* simple rule: "has a content-type:
> >> multipart/* header in the main message headers" and "has no
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016, RW wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
MIME_NO_TEXT is a *very* simple rule: "has a content-type:
multipart/* header in the main message headers" and "has no
content-type: text/* MIME header anywhere."
I've only 3 hits on this in the last 4
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016, Bill Cole wrote:
On 30 Mar 2016, at 21:22, John Hardin wrote:
Not sure what you mean by "in the original message body" because it seems
having a CT:t/* header in the original message suppresses that rule in my
and David's testing.
randomly added into the body, i.e. te
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
> MIME_NO_TEXT is a *very* simple rule: "has a content-type:
> multipart/* header in the main message headers" and "has no
> content-type: text/* MIME header anywhere."
I've only 3 hits on this in the last 4k spam, but FWIW all of them
On 30 Mar 2016, at 21:22, John Hardin wrote:
Not sure what you mean by "in the original message body" because it
seems having a CT:t/* header in the original message suppresses that
rule in my and David's testing.
randomly added into the body, i.e. text in the format of a header where
it's
On 30 Mar 2016, at 21:22, John Hardin wrote:
So, overall, I've got 8 carefully and not excessively redacted slight
variants of one bounce now with CT and MV headers inserted in various
ways and if anyone wants the entire collector's set, they're free for
the asking as a 30k tarball, I'll even
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016, Bill Cole wrote:
On 30 Mar 2016, at 11:20, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016, David B Funk wrote:
> Now my original message was a CT: text/plain. Maybe if the original
> message had no textural components at all it might fire as you
> describe but I think it wo
On 30 Mar 2016, at 11:20, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016, David B Funk wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016, Bill Cole wrote:
On 29 Mar 2016, at 19:36, John Hardin wrote:
> Can you send me some samples?
Probably. Tomorrow. Afternoon. When I can spin up a bullshit VM
(what
still uses se
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016, David B Funk wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016, Bill Cole wrote:
On 29 Mar 2016, at 19:36, John Hardin wrote:
> Can you send me some samples?
Probably. Tomorrow. Afternoon. When I can spin up a bullshit VM (what
still uses sendmail with a default workingish config?) or sani
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016, Bill Cole wrote:
On 29 Mar 2016, at 19:36, John Hardin wrote:
So, a message that's explicitly multipart MIME but which has only one part?
Or does it actually have multiple parts, just none are marked as
text/plain?
multipart/report; type=delivery-status. The standard MI
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016, Bill Cole wrote:
On 29 Mar 2016, at 19:36, John Hardin wrote:
Can you send me some samples?
OR: if you can submit mail through a Sendmail instance, send mail to any bad
address anywhere on any machine running any MTA, all it has to do is say '5yz
blah blah we hate yo
On 29 Mar 2016, at 19:36, John Hardin wrote:
So, a message that's explicitly multipart MIME but which has only one
part? Or does it actually have multiple parts, just none are marked as
text/plain?
multipart/report; type=delivery-status. The standard MIME delivery
status notification structu
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016, Bill Cole wrote:
This is true for 8.14.7 in FreeBSD 8.4-RELEASE-p27 (a.k.a. "Update your damn
boxes, Bill!") and I see nothing in later release notes indicating a relevant
change in Sendmail, which is formally within spec by putting no MIME headers
in the human-readable fi
18 matches
Mail list logo
