How did I know the body is not encoded? For scores of over 20 the system forwards the email to an account that we check using Outlook Express. OE is better and easier to use for looking at the header since you can easily get the properties and then see the entire body and the header, whereas in Outlook you can't see an encoded body.
>From what I have seen so far, when a message is encoded the body is really unreadable. So in OE when you look at the message detail in the message property window it is all encoded. In the case of this eMail I saw the HTML body just like other emails but it had two attachments. So without the two attachments the body looked OK. Now I am probably not looking at the right thing. Regards, Kami -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 2:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] BASE64 problem!? >it seems like any email that has attachment is triggering the BASE64 >test. We have put a weight of 14 hoping the body of the eMail trigger >this but now attachments are triggering this as well. For example: Note that the base64 test should apply only to text and/or HTML segments. >This eMail: >============ >X-RBL-Warning: HELOBOGUS: Domain has no MX/A records. >X-RBL-Warning: BASE64: An binary encoded text or HTML section was found >in >this E-mail. >X-RBL-Warning: WORDFILTER: Message failed WORDFILTER test (217) >X-Declude-Sender: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >[209.81.57.203] >X-Declude-Spoolname: D932e00a901761f57.SMD >X-Note: This E-mail was scanned by Declude >(<http://www.declude.com>www.declude.com) for SPAM & virus. >X-Note: This E-mail was sent from ([209.81.57.203]). >X-Spam-Tests-Failed: HELOBOGUS, BASE64, WORDFILTER, WEIGHT20, WEIGHT20S >X-Weight: 25 >============ > >had two attachments (JPG) and (HTML). The body of the email was not >encoded. How do you know the body was not encoded? Did you look at an .mbx file? Note that the HTML attachment will count towards the base64 test, as HTML should never need to be binary encoded. >Any way we can make this distinction so we can only flag the body of >the >eMail and not the attachments? It's important to realize that with MIME, there is no distinction between the body of the E-mail and attachments. With MIME, the E-mail is divided into 1 or more segments, each of which can be text, HTML, a binary file, etc. Some of those may be visible, while others aren't. With a typical Outlook E-mail with a .ZIP attachment, you would have 3 segments: a text segment with the body of the E-mail, an HTML segment with the body of the E-mail, and the .ZIP attachment. Only the HTML (or text, depending on the mail client) segment would be visible, while the .ZIP file would appear as an attachment. In this case, the text segment (or HTML) would not be visible or even linked to as an attachment. So MIME can get confusing quite easily. -Scott --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
