Messages w/o text not being marked clean.

Craig Pratt craig at STRONG-BOX.NET
Thu Mar 6 03:22:09 GMT 2003


No - I think you had a good point. If MS (or one of the underlying Perl
modules, more likely) is doing this conversion - basically turning
RFC822 messages into semi-MIME-compliant messages - it should make them
fully-MIME-compliant.

However, I do think that addition of the header is still an acceptable
work-around. If it's the only thing missing on the semi-MIME-compliant
MS-generated messages, those will be OK. And for the non-MIME messages
(RFC822, I presume?), there's some interesting verbiage in section 4 of
the MIME standard (thanks for the link BTW - very interesting reading):

    Default RFC 822 messages are typed by this protocol as plain text in
    the US-ASCII character set, which can be explicitly specified as
    "Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii".  If no Content-Type is
    specified, this default is assumed.  In the presence of a MIME-
    Version header field, a receiving User Agent can also assume that
    plain US-ASCII text was the sender's intent.  In the absence of a
    MIME-Version specification, plain US-ASCII text must still be
    assumed, but the sender's intent might have been otherwise.

I dunno - still could be missing something here.

But I think - again along the lines of solving your immediate problem -
writing a procmail recipe to add the header iff there is a Multipart
header and there isn't a Version header is also doable. Sorry that I
can't write it off the top of my head, though...

Craig
craig at strong-box.net

On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 01:37  PM, Chris Selivanow wrote:
> I must me completely loosing it today..and didn't get the
> point of your message.  It would be a problem to just add
> the header to all mail messages because it violates
> RFC1521 which states that if such a header exists then the
> message is guarenteed to be MIME compliant.  Likewise, if
> a otherwise MIME compliant message doesn't have this header
> then it also violates the RFC and is therefor uncompliant.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1521.txt (section 3)
>
> (which is why I believe Eudora chokes on the emails)
>
> -Chris
>
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:27:40 -0500
> Chris Selivanow <cselivanow at QWICNET.COM> wrote:
>
> CS> On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:07:49 -0800
> CS> Craig Pratt <craig at STRONG-BOX.NET> wrote:
> CS>
> CS> CP> Actually, would having it on all messages really be a problem?
> CS> CP>
> CS> CP> That would certainly simplify things. Couldn't a procmail
> recipe that
> CS> CP> says to just add this header if not present?
> CS>
> CS> Actually I could do that however, I think that mailscanner should
> be adding
> CS> it because it appears that it actually causes the problem after it
> CS> converts a uuencoded message to a MIME multipart message.  It
> should be
> CS> adding the MIME-Version header to the email it modifies.
> CS>
> CS> -Chris
> CS>
> CS> CP>
> CS> CP> Craig
> CS> CP>
> CS> CP> On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 12:38  PM, Chris Selivanow
> wrote:
> CS> CP> > It actually looks like Eudora is complaining that
> "MIME-Version: 1.0"
> CS> CP> > isn't in the main headers.  If I manually edit the spool
> file and
> CS> CP> > insert
> CS> CP> > it before the usesr POPs the mail it works fine.  Is there a
> way to
> CS> CP> > have
> CS> CP> > mailscanner check for a "MIME-Version" header and insert it
> if it
> CS> CP> > doesn't
> CS> CP> > exist and if a uuencoded file was converted?
> CS> CP> >
> CS> CP> > -Chris
> CS> CP> >
> CS> CP> > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:52:23 -0500
> CS> CP> > Chris Selivanow <cselivanow at QWICNET.COM> wrote:
> CS> CP> >
> CS> CP> > CS> Julian-
> CS> CP> > CS>
> CS> CP> > CS> Thanks for the responce.  I had previously posted a
> question
> CS> CP> > regarding Outlook
> CS> CP> > CS> and attachments.  I think that I have solved my  issue
> with that
> CS> CP> > and it seems
> CS> CP> > CS> to be related to this issue and how mailscanner handles
> uuencoded
> CS> CP> > messages.
> CS> CP> > CS>
> CS> CP> > CS> Here is the situation:  I have a client where some
> people are
> CS> CP> > using outlook 97
> CS> CP> > CS> and some people are using Eudora 5.  Before the
> mailscanner
> CS> CP> > (3.27)install there
> CS> CP> > CS> were no problems.  After the mailscanner install those
> who were
> CS> CP> > using Eudora
> CS> CP> > CS> were having issues with attachments sent via outlook.
> Basically
> CS> CP> > the multipart
> CS> CP> > CS> message content was all being displayed in the message
> body.
> CS> CP> > CS>
> CS> CP> > CS> The reason follows:
> CS> CP> > CS>
> CS> CP> > CS> Mailscanner converts a uuencoded message, which only has
> one part
> CS> CP> > ie: lacking
> CS> CP> > CS> a "Content-type" header, and converts it into a base64
> encoded
> CS> CP> > multipart
> CS> CP> > CS> message.  This is all fine and well.  However,
> mailscanner also
> CS> CP> > adds the text:
> CS> CP> > CS>
> CS> CP> > CS> The following is a multipart MIME message which was
> extracted
> CS> CP> > CS> from a uuencoded message.
> CS> CP> > CS>
> CS> CP> > CS> Mailscanner does not however add a boundery line like:
> CS> CP> > CS>
> CS> CP> > CS>      ------------=_1046891750-551-2
> CS> CP> > CS>
> CS> CP> > CS> before the previous message.  This causes Eudora to
> believe one of
> CS> CP> > two things
> CS> CP> > CS> (as far a I can tell)
> CS> CP> > CS>
> CS> CP> > CS> 1)  That the message really isn't a multipart message
> CS> CP> > CS> 2)  That it has another part that is missing (ie: the
> attachment)
> CS> CP> > CS>
> CS> CP> > CS> I'm not really sure of the innerworkings of mailscanner
> but this
> CS> CP> > seems to
> CS> CP> > CS> be what happens.  Is there a way to resolve this?
> Besides having
> CS> CP> > my
> CS> CP> > CS> client tell their senders to reconfigure thier outlook?
> CS> CP> > CS>
> CS> CP> > CS> -Chris
> CS> CP> > CS>
> CS> CP> > CS> On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:11:57 +0000
> CS> CP> > CS> Julian Field <mailscanner at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> wrote:
> CS> CP> > CS>
> CS> CP> > CS> JF> At 17:24 05/03/2003, you wrote:
> CS> CP> > CS> JF> >Hi all-
> CS> CP> > CS> JF> >
> CS> CP> > CS> JF> >I noticed that if I send an email with an
> attachment but no
> CS> CP> > text in the body
> CS> CP> > CS> JF> >of the email that the mailscanner will scan the
> message but
> CS> CP> > not append the
> CS> CP> > CS> JF> >clean message signature.  Of course if there is at
> least one
> CS> CP> > character in the
> CS> CP> > CS> JF> >body then the signature is appended.  Is there any
> way to get
> CS> CP> > the signature
> CS> CP> > CS> JF> >appended every time?
> CS> CP> > CS> JF>
> CS> CP> > CS> JF> It appends the signature to the first html and/or
> text segment
> CS> CP> > of the
> CS> CP> > CS> JF> message. If there's no body at all, there's nowhere
> to put the
> CS> CP> > signature.
> CS> CP> > CS> JF>
> CS> CP> > CS> JF> I'll take a look at the possibility of creating a
> body if
> CS> CP> > needed.
> CS> CP> > CS> JF> --
> CS> CP> > CS> JF> Julian Field
> CS> CP> > CS> JF> www.MailScanner.info
> CS> CP> > CS> JF> Professional Support Services at www.MailScanner.biz
> CS> CP> > CS> JF> MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their
> support
> CS> CP> > CS>
> CS> CP> > CS>
> CS> CP> > CS> --
> CS> CP> > CS> Chris Selivanow             585 582-1600
> CS> CP> > CS> Lead Technician             585 624-3465 (fax)
> CS> CP> > CS> QwicNet, Inc.               http://www.qwicnet.com
> CS> CP> >
> CS> CP> >
> CS> CP> > --
> CS> CP> > Chris Selivanow             585 582-1600
> CS> CP> > Lead Technician             585 624-3465 (fax)
> CS> CP> > QwicNet, Inc.               http://www.qwicnet.com
> CS> CP> >
> CS> CP> > --
> CS> CP> > This message checked for dangerous content by MailScanner on
> StrongBox.
> CS> CP> >
> CS> CP>
> CS> CP>
> CS> CP> --
> CS> CP> This message checked for dangerous content by MailScanner on
> StrongBox.
> CS>
> CS>
> CS> --
> CS> Chris Selivanow             585 582-1600
> CS> Lead Technician             585 624-3465 (fax)
> CS> QwicNet, Inc.               http://www.qwicnet.com
>
>
> --
> Chris Selivanow             585 582-1600
> Lead Technician             585 624-3465 (fax)
> QwicNet, Inc.               http://www.qwicnet.com
>
> --
> This message checked for dangerous content by MailScanner on StrongBox.
>


--
This message checked for dangerous content by MailScanner on StrongBox.



More information about the MailScanner mailing list