Different rules for files within archives

[George C]

Julian Field wrote:
> Just to keep you updated, I've written all the code now. As a rough
> guide to the amount of work involved on Friday and yesterday, the diff
> is 2,969 lines long. A good couple of days work :-)
>
> I've done some initial testing with zip, rar and tnef files, and it's
> all looking very good so far. So far at least 90% of the code is
> working nicely, I've just got to test the rest. I want to do some more
> testing tomorrow, but I need to take most of today off as I could do
> with the break.
>
> I've also found a nasty bug in the interaction between "Use TNEF =
> replace" and "Zip Attachments = yes", which is clearly a combination
> no-one uses, as it didn't work. That's all fixed now too, and it
> should be considerably faster unpacking TNEF files (winmail.dat) using
> the "TNEF Expander = internal" setting than it was.
>
> I have also managed to speed up all the "filename.rules.conf" and
> "filetype.rules.conf" code quite a bit too, which is good.
>
> I should have a beta of all of this out in the next couple of days or so.
>
> Best regards,
> Jules.
>
> On 27/3/09 15:36, Julian Field wrote:
>> This is turning into a very major job, requiring many changes
>> throughout the whole of MailScanner, as the original design was never
>> intended to be able to do this.
>> However, I am working on it.
>> The intention is that you will have totally separate settings for
>>     Filename Rules
>>     Filetype Rules
>>     Allow Filenames
>>     Allow Filetypes
>>     Allow File MIME Types
>>     Deny Filenames
>>     Deny Filetypes
>>     Deny File MIME Types
>> for archived and non-archived attachments.
>>
>> You will also be able to specify what you consider to be an
>> "archived" attachment, be it a file in a zip attachment, a rar
>> attachment, an OLE attachment (Word doc, for example), a UU-encoded
>> attachment and a TNEF (winmail.dat) attachment.
>>
>> All these settings will be on a per-message basis and so will take
>> rulesets, allowing different clients to have totally different rules
>> for their setups.
>>
>> That's the aim. I'm over half way through the implementation now, but
>> none of it has been tested yet. There's going to be a fair bit of
>> debugging required, I guarantee that. So beta-testers, on your blocks
>> please... :-)
>>
>> Hopefully this will keep you all happy for a little while ;-)
>>
>> Jules
>>
>
> Jules
>
Great work m8 ;-)