I'm not so sure outlook won't display all kinds of weird stuff if it says it has
a particular MIME type (and is maybe even encoded), if:
a) there are no other parts
b) the thing actually decodes to text, even if the MIME type is wrong
c) the thing actually decodes to X (where X is MSWord, RTF, HTML, text, xyz)
d) the thing is in some weird nested multipart/foo structure
e) some combination of the above
Also true probably for other MUAs too, particularly the ones which have been
around longer and have more cobbled-together kludgy message parsing stuff going
in. Outlook for example internally doesn't give a crap what the MIME type was
-- when it's rendering an email message, it's going off some internal data
structure which has already been divided up into component chunks.
C
Tobias von Koch wrote:
TvK> On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:30:06 -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
TvK>
TvK> D> | Hmmm...would it be safe to assume that any attachment type of
TvK> D> text/<whatever>| should be scanned while anything else should not?
TvK> D>
TvK> D> Some mailers have quite a bit of brain damage and will tag a plain
TvK> D> text attachment as "application/octet-stream".
TvK>
TvK> But the MUA won't display them in this case (at least not sylpheed,
TvK> Outlook?). Ignoring them would be ok in my opinion.
TvK>
TvK> tobias
TvK>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bringing you mounds of caffeinated joy
>>> http://thinkgeek.com/sf <<<
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
