Re: Content ID vs. filename?

From: Rick Johnson (
Date: Sat 01 Nov 2003 - 00:36:29 GMT

  • Next message: B. van Burk: "Bounce on Attachment Type"

    Might it be possible to either exclude the Content-ID fix (make it feature
    selectable), or come up with a rule which looks for "part.*@.*.com" and
    exclude it from the typical exe/com rule we all probably use? This is
    continuing to bite us as well. In our case the attachments are called:


    Just don't know how to implement, but it seems an exclusionary rule might work.


    Marvin Herbold wrote:
    > I posted the exact same problem a week or two ago - nobody had a
    > solution. The result was that I had to allow .com files through or all
    > inline images would be dropped. :-(
    > Marvin
    > Rick Johnson wrote:
    >>I was experimenting with a new feature of Mozilla Thunderbird today - the
    >>ability to paste inline screenshots (as JPEG attachments).
    >>When I sent a message with a screen shot embedded, the recipient on the
    >>other size said that Sanitizer had pulled the attachment. I thought this was
    >>a bit odd, so I looked at my message source. Here's a bit of the mime header:
    >>Content-Type: image/jpeg;
    >> name="moz-screenshot.jpg"
    >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
    >>Content-ID: <>
    >>Content-Disposition: inline;
    >> filename="moz-screenshot.jpg"
    >>The Sanitizer log stated that the file had been quarantined with the name of
    >>Which is telling me that Anomy picked up the Content-ID instead of the name
    >>or filename fields.
    >>Is there a setting I can change? Is Thunderbird setting the wrong
    >>mime-headers for this message, or is Anomy looking in the wrong place?

    Rick Johnson, RHCE #807302311706007 -
    Linux/Network Administrator - Medata, Inc.
    PGP Public Key:

    hosted by