EMERGENCY: MyParty

[Michael Chaney]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 08:20:25PM +0000, Julian Field wrote:
> At 19:55 28/01/2002, you wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 06:18:57PM +0000, Julian Field wrote:
> > > It's not a proper attachment, it's just uuencoded data stuffed in-line in
> > > the main body of the (plain text) message. There are no MIME headers at
> > > all, or anything. It's just in-line data, which apparently some email
> > > clients appear to identify, decode, and present like an attachment.
> >
> >Which makes perfect sense.  I've been downloading uuencoded goodies for
> >years from usenet, and posted a few myself (back in the pre-spam,
> >pre-www days).  MIME wasn't around back then.
> >
> >It seems to me that it would make sense to pass the message body into
> >"DefinitelyClean" and simply check for a uuencoded file, which would be
> >a simple regex and would surely be quicker than scanning all files.  The
> >logic would be:
> >
> >if mime header return 0;
> >if uuencoded file in body return 0;
> >return 1;
> >
> >That shouldn't require too much more horsepower.
>
> Can we guarantee that this only works with uuencoded files, and doesn't
> work with other encodings in some mail clients as well?

I'm very familiar with various ways to package files.  uuencoding has
been around forever, and MIME is a recent innovation.  Since MIME is
completely general purpose, there is, at this time, no need for any
other format.  You'll know if/when the unlikely event occurs that
another format is used, and can plan for it.

Michael
--
Michael Darrin Chaney
mdchaney at michaelchaney.com
http://www.michaelchaney.com/