Re: [Nmh-workers] NMH Work-arounds for Exchange server mangling(OT???)
On 29 August 2012 at 11:03, Ken Hornstein wrote: > >I verified that Exchange doesn't mangle outgoing x-sh > >attachments. But it (V6.5) does mangle them when they're > >incoming. How odd. > > Even encoded as Base64? If that is the case, then that's damn unfriendly. Until I found .sh worked, then yes, Exchange would alter incoming Base64 on _some_ messages. For instance, it would leave .tgz alone, and it leaves .sh alone. -- Kevin ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] NMH Work-arounds for Exchange server mangling(OT???)
>I verified that Exchange doesn't mangle outgoing x-sh >attachments. But it (V6.5) does mangle them when they're >incoming. How odd. Even encoded as Base64? If that is the case, then that's damn unfriendly. --Ken ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] NMH Work-arounds for Exchange server mangling(OT???)
On 29 August 2012 at 10:43, David Levine wrote: > Kevin wrote: > > I chose only the .sh extension. Nmh picked the type and encoding. > > The message was sent as: > > > > Content-Type: application/x-sh > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 > > > > Exchange left that alone. > > I verified that Exchange doesn't mangle outgoing x-sh > attachments. But it (V6.5) does mangle them when they're > incoming. How odd. I don't have any trouble with outgoing messages being altered in transit. My troubles have always been with incoming messages through Exchange. Even that wasn't a problem until sometime during the Spring of 2012, having worked fine with all the mail systems I encountered for the prior ~20 years. After going through the Exchange server I get email from there with fetchmail, which passes the mail to slocal, which delivers some messages right away and sends others through procmail, and procmail filters messages through spamassassin. What can I say, that works for me. Cheerio -- Kevin ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] NMH Work-arounds for Exchange server mangling(OT???)
Kevin wrote: > I chose only the .sh extension. Nmh picked the type and encoding. > The message was sent as: > > Content-Type: application/x-sh > Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 > > Exchange left that alone. I verified that Exchange doesn't mangle outgoing x-sh attachments. But it (V6.5) does mangle them when they're incoming. How odd. David ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] NMH Work-arounds for Exchange server mangling (OT???)
On 28 August 2012 at 12:27, Ken Hornstein wrote: > >For me .bin failed. Whereas .sh works just fine. Yippee!!! > > So, just for my curiosity ... what was the MIME type and > Content-Transfer-Encoding that you ended up using? I chose only the .sh extension. Nmh picked the type and encoding. The message was sent as: Content-Type: application/x-sh Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Exchange left that alone. Sending the attachment as .bin ended up as text/plain and Exchange had a fun time changing the contents of that. Cheerio... -- Kevin ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] NMH Work-arounds for Exchange server mangling (OT???)
>For me .bin failed. Whereas .sh works just fine. Yippee!!! So, just for my curiosity ... what was the MIME type and Content-Transfer-Encoding that you ended up using? --Ken ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] NMH Work-arounds for Exchange server mangling (OT???)
On 20 August 2012 at 14:04, David Levine wrote: > Kevin wrote: > > > > [Ken:] > > > - Maybe a Content-Type of application/octet-stream would work? > > > > I already tried a variation on that. I gave it a fake .exe > > extension, thinking that Exchange might look more favorably on > > it. No joy there. > > I didn't have any luck with it either. Or with .bin or .sh. For me .bin failed. Whereas .sh works just fine. Yippee!!! Thanks for the brain amplification to all who responded. I'm a happy guy... :^) -- Kevin ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] NMH Work-arounds for Exchange server mangling (OT???)
On 20 August 2012 at 12:38, Ken Hornstein wrote: > So, some suggestions for you, in no particular order. > > - Maybe putting a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit would help on your > attachents? Unfortunately we can't specify the CTE in nmh (but it's > something I always wanted to add); you'd have to add it to the draft > manually. Still trying things. Thought I'd report that the 7bit trick didn't work for the Exchange server I'm dealing with. FYI -- Kevin ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] NMH Work-arounds for Exchange server mangling (OT???)
Kevin wrote: > > [Ken:] > > - Maybe a Content-Type of application/octet-stream would work? > > I already tried a variation on that. I gave it a fake .exe > extension, thinking that Exchange might look more favorably on > it. No joy there. I didn't have any luck with it either. Or with .bin or .sh. Here's one thing that did work: the three character sequence of [backspace] [horizontal tab] [line feed] in the file. It can be at the end of a comment. I'd hate to rely on that, but maybe it will give you some clue to what Exchange is doing. Or an 8-bit character works. David ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] NMH Work-arounds for Exchange server mangling (OT???)
Sending files as ".exe" is probably not the wisest way to work around things either, as you wil fall afoul of virus heuristics. ".bin" seems to be the more conventional way to approach this. ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] NMH Work-arounds for Exchange server mangling (OT???)
>> - Maybe a Content-Type of application/octet-stream would work? >> If you want to do that via nmh-attachment ... from what I >> remember it looks those up via suffixes that are listed via the >> normal mhn mechanism (mhn.defaults). Hm, I see that files that >> end in .sh will be sent via application/x-sh; maybe that would >> work? > >I already tried a variation on that. I gave it a fake .exe >extension, thinking that Exchange might look more favorably on >it. No joy there. So if you tried that with nmh-attachment ... that might not have done what you wanted. _If_ the nmh-attachment code can't find a matching extension in mhn.defaults (the default one doesn't have anything that matches .exe), it looks through the file to be attached; if there is nothing with the high bit set, it defaults to text/plain, otherwise application/octet-stream. So if your "fake" exe file was really a shar file, it probably was sent as text/plain. --Ken ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] NMH Work-arounds for Exchange server mangling (OT???)
On 20 August 2012 at 12:38, Ken Hornstein wrote: > I was thinking that you really meant "base 64" instead of uuencode > ... until you mentioned shar files. My next thought was, "People > still use shar files?!??!". Should I send you a photo of me with my pet dinosaur? ;-) What can I say, I used to run UUCP with sendmail and MH-3. Then I got into the mindset of "if it's not broken, don't fix it". Exchange just broke it after running just fine for 20 years. > - Maybe putting a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit would help on > your attachments? Unfortunately we can't specify the CTE in nmh > (but it's something I always wanted to add); you'd have to add > it to the draft manually. Excellent idea. I'll try that. Given the quoted-printable 7/8-bit wars I've had with Exchange over the years, I'm cautiously pessimistic about the outcome. > - Maybe a Content-Disposition of inline would work? You CAN > set that via mhbuild directives. I'll try that too. I'll have to have a look at the mhbuild manual as I've never used mhbuild before. > - Maybe a Content-Type of application/octet-stream would work? > If you want to do that via nmh-attachment ... from what I > remember it looks those up via suffixes that are listed via the > normal mhn mechanism (mhn.defaults). Hm, I see that files that > end in .sh will be sent via application/x-sh; maybe that would > work? I already tried a variation on that. I gave it a fake .exe extension, thinking that Exchange might look more favorably on it. No joy there. Thanks! -- Kevin ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] NMH Work-arounds for Exchange server mangling (OT???)
>The Exchange server alters uuencoded content by changing >text/plain into the MS version of quoted printable text, with >"=3D" in place of "=", etc. That made shar files (shell scripts) >fail badly after transiting through that email path. I was thinking that you really meant "base 64" instead of uuencode ... until you mentioned shar files. My next thought was, "People still use shar files?!??!". So, some suggestions for you, in no particular order. - Maybe putting a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit would help on your attachents? Unfortunately we can't specify the CTE in nmh (but it's something I always wanted to add); you'd have to add it to the draft manually. - Maybe a Content-Disposition of inline would work? You CAN set that via mhbuild directives. - Maybe a Content-Type of application/octet-stream would work? If you want to do that via nmh-attachment ... from what I remember it looks those up via suffixes that are listed via the normal mhn mechanism (mhn.defaults). Hm, I see that files that end in .sh will be sent via application/x-sh; maybe that would work? --Ken ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] NMH Work-arounds for Exchange server mangling (OT???)
On 2012-08-16, at 19:03 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > Almost, but not quite correct. > > Unfortunately, that will corrupt a file that happened to have a bare > carriage-return > character that wasn't part of a CR/LF pair. (Of course, having such a > character > embedded in the middle of a line is possibly a Bad Idea... but that's usually > not > considered sufficient grounds for silent corruption of a file). True, but in 20 years it has never once bitten me in practice. signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] NMH Work-arounds for Exchange server mangling (OT???)
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:37:17 -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg said: > tr -d \015 Almost, but not quite correct. Unfortunately, that will corrupt a file that happened to have a bare carriage-return character that wasn't part of a CR/LF pair. (Of course, having such a character embedded in the middle of a line is possibly a Bad Idea... but that's usually not considered sufficient grounds for silent corruption of a file). pgpzUWFko4HZ9.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] NMH Work-arounds for Exchange server mangling (OT???)
On 2012-08-16, at 17:38 PM, David Levine wrote: > I think that's the best way to handle it. Howard mentioned > dos2unix, which I use also. tr -d \015 signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] NMH Work-arounds for Exchange server mangling (OT???)
Kevin wrote: > I'm trying to use nmh to craft my emails such that > Exchange won't mangle it. Good luck with that :-/ I've given up, I've found Exchange to be unpredictable. > Is there a better way to use mhn to unpack the > attachments, converting DOS form back to UNIX form? I > suppose I could write a shell script to alter the files > after mhn unpacks them. I think that's the best way to handle it. Howard mentioned dos2unix, which I use also. > Is there a better way to use nmh-attachment and send to > form a message of a different type, > e.g. application/octet-stream, so that Exchange might not > mangle it? I couldn't even get that to work. Maybe an embedded non-printable character would? David ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] NMH Work-arounds for Exchange server mangling (OT???)
On 16 August 2012 at 12:55, Howard Bampton wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Kevin Cosgrove wrote: > > > Is there a better way to use mhn to unpack the attachments, > > converting DOS form back to UNIX form? I suppose I could write a > > shell script to alter the files after mhn unpacks them. > > It doesn't fix the actual problem, but there is a dos2unix (and > unix2dos) command that will handle line ending issues. It is available > for most (all?) modern UNIX-like OS's. That, or an equivalent sed command, might be the most expedient option. Thanks -- Kevin ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] NMH Work-arounds for Exchange server mangling (OT???)
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Kevin Cosgrove wrote: > Is there a better way to use mhn to unpack the attachments, > converting DOS form back to UNIX form? I suppose I could write a > shell script to alter the files after mhn unpacks them. It doesn't fix the actual problem, but there is a dos2unix (and unix2dos) command that will handle line ending issues. It is available for most (all?) modern UNIX-like OS's. ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
