On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 the voices made dman(_at_)nomotek(_dot_)com write:
"Tony L. Svanstrom" <tony(_at_)svanstrom(_dot_)com> wrote:
Yay, I can stop doing the b64-decoding myself now (just noticed the
0.10.0- version).
I have to ask why you are bothering to decode.
The combination of KISS and a very sick and twisted mind is what's forcing me
to do such things; if I've got a bayesian filter it bloody well better do a
good job at catching the spam... Decoding e-mails before the e-mail, even
though I could /dev/null them right there, is, to me, keeping it simple. =)
Has anyone yet found a base-64-encoded *non-multipart* message that wasn't
spam? I know *I* haven't.
Well, actually, the really sure sign is multipart with only one part in it.
BUT... I've noticed that some MTAs mess up non-multipart base64 e-mails when
decoding them (which they shouldn't do, but...), so if you really want to
protect the contents in an e-mail by encoding them you are more or less forced
to use multipart, even when there's only one part.
(Found that out when I'd given up on finding the bug in my base64-decoder.)
--
/\___/\ /\___/\
\_@ @_/ \_@ @_/
+--oOO-(_)-OOo------------------------------------------oOO-(_)-OOo--+
| Per scientiam ad libertatem! // Through knowledge towards freedom! |
+---ôôô---ôôô--------------------------------------------ôôô---ôôô---+
\O/ \O/ (c)1998-2003 tony(_at_)svanstrom(_dot_)com \O/ \O/
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail