On 2001-02-13, 17:28:32 (+0100), Tom Staels wrote:
> First off, I want to make clear that I fully agree with your position on
> changeing the message structure.
> Also, now I (mostly) understand why Anomy (& Outlook) are treating the log
> in this way.
> My thought on the issue : you've said it yourself, the solution is implied
> in the 'problem'.
> Those that want to use the inline log, should be warned that the message
> structure will be changed to multipart/mixed. It seems like the 'only' way
> to make sure the log will be visible upon arrival at client.
> Just a loose thought...could anomy not sent it's log in a separate
Yes - this could probably be implemented from within procmail
(assuming procmail is wrapping the sanitizer) by using feat_log_stderr
instead of feat_log_inline, catching stderr and building a seperate
message from that. This strikes me as a somewhat ugly solution
-- Bjarni R. Einarsson PGP: 02764305, B7A3AB89 email@example.com -><- http://bre.klaki.net/
Check out my open-source email sanitizer: http://mailtools.anomy.net/