On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 12:25:21AM +0200, Dallman Ross wrote:
:0 # 030504 () where's the "multipart"? There's just one encoded part
* CTYPE ?? ^^multipart/mixed
* 2^0 B ?? ^Content-Transfer-Encoding:(.*\<)?\
(base64|7bit)
* $ -$MAXINT^0
* -1^0 B ?? ^Content-Type:(.*\<)?text/plain
* -1^1 B ?? ^Content-Type:
* $ $MAXINT^0
{ RX = "${RX:+$RX, }UBE.B+CT.MISMATCH:1" }
I think I get what this is doing, but wouldn't something like this be
simpler?
:0
* ^Content-Type: multipart/
{
:0 B
* 1^1 ^Content-Type:
{ PARTS=$= }
:0 A
* PARTS ?? ^^1^^
{ W = "multipart: just one part" }
:0 E
* PARTS ?? ^^0^^
{ W = "multipart: no parts" }
}
system. Typing "man -k base64" gives me one installed on my system:
it's called, oddly enough, "base64".
12:21am [~/Mail] 482[0]> echo foo | base64 | base64 -d
foo
I'm curious as to where that came from -- but another solution for this
is mimedefang from http://www.roaringpenguin.com/mimedefang/.
I still don't think decoding base64 is worth the bother. It's sort
of like strip-searching people you find have broken into your house
at 3 a.m. to see if they have any burglary tools on 'em. Hell, if
they're in your house uninvited at 3 a.m., that's damning enough.
And if someone sends text-only or HTML mail base64-encoded, that's
damning enough.
Or ... strip-searching folks that phone you at 3AM. Unfortunately, 3AM
in my timezone is the middle of the business day in parts of Asia. You
can't block a whole technology just because spammers are using it. Even
base64-encoded text/plain has its place, if the charset warrants it.
--
Paul Chvostek
<paul(_at_)it(_dot_)ca>
Operations / Abuse / Whatever
it.canada, hosting and development http://www.it.ca/
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail