From: James Edward Gray II <james@...>
Date: 2007-10-30T05:37:34+09:00
Subject: Re: Enhancing the Gateway (Help Needed)

Fred, you always show up when I need you.  That's why you're still my  
best friend.  ;)

On Oct 29, 2007, at 1:55 PM, F. Senault wrote:

> Le 29 octobre à 16:06, James Edward Gray II a écrit :
>
>> On Oct 29, 2007, at 9:20 AM, mortee wrote:
>
>>> Otherwise, you're most likely left with HTML to
>>> strip, and images which you may either drop or attach to the  
>>> output as
>>> files.
>>
>> Right.  Which means I still need to settle on an HTML strategy as  
>> well.
>
> I'm not sure you have that many HTML only messages.  For my mailbox, I
> have an HTML-only filter.  It catches 0.5% of my incoming mail, and  
> it's 100% spam.

Yes, you may be right about that.  Perhaps not much of a concern.   
I'm not seeing any such messages in my sample data.

> OTOH, I seem to recall we looked at a weird multipart/alternative
> message recently which had only one plain text part.

Sadly, that's extremely common.  Have a look at just the beginning of  
my sample data:

271456:  multipart/alternative ()
   text/plain (UTF-8)
271541:  multipart/signed ()
   text/plain (utf-8)
   application/pgp-signature ()
271567:  multipart/signed ()
   text/plain (iso-8859-1)
   application/pgp-signature ()
271588:  multipart/signed ()
   text/plain (utf-8)
   application/pgp-signature ()
271569:  multipart/alternative ()
   text/plain (ISO-8859-1)
271578:  multipart/alternative ()
   text/plain (ISO-8859-1)
271566:  multipart/signed ()
   text/plain (iso-8859-1)
   application/pgp-signature ()
271568:  multipart/alternative ()
   text/plain (ISO-8859-1)
271444:  multipart/alternative ()
   text/plain (ISO-8859-1)
271452:  multipart/alternative ()
   text/plain (ISO-8859-1)
271640:  multipart/alternative ()
   text/plain (UTF-8)
271669:  multipart/alternative ()
   text/plain (ISO-8859-1)
…

Good thing those are super easy to fix.  ;)

>>> Sorry if I happen to be wrong on one point or the other.
>>
>> The other usage that seems common, more common than the HTML case in
>> fact, is as part of a signed message:
>>
>>    271822:  multipart/signed ()
>>      multipart/related ()
>>      application/pgp-signature ()
>>
>> I've not yet checked to see if these messages are gated properly with
>> our current setup.
>
> Yes.  I have <200710281217.12340.konrad@tylerc.org> / ruby-talk  
> 276326,
> for instance.  I can't guarantee it's propagated as well as a pure  
> text
> message, but it should be on most servers.

Awesome.  That's good to know.  Thanks for checking that for me.

James Edward Gray II