On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Ryan Moore wrote: > I got an email that made it by spamassassin with virtually no hits, > which looks like it used some wierd mime technique to get through > spamassassin. [...] > > Is it valid to specify a different boundary in the mime header (when not > attaching a rfc822 source message)?
The sample is a well-formed nested multipart. I know SA had problems descending into nested parts in the past, but I've lost track of the status. What version are you using? Can someone say whether this is still a problem in 2.60? It's stretching the semantics of multipart/related a bit to make the first part be multipart/alternative, because the intent is that announcing the type of the first part of the m/r allows the user agent to decide how to render the content -- which the UA can't do without lookahead if the first part is another multipart. However, it isn't actually invalid AFAICT. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: VM Ware With VMware you can run multiple operating systems on a single machine. WITHOUT REBOOTING! Mix Linux / Windows / Novell virtual machines at the same time. Free trial click here:http://www.vmware.com/wl/offer/358/0 _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
