FAQ
One of my mailing lists rejected a message today and I don't understand
why. The contents of the mailman message are:

I 1 <no description> [text/plain, 7bit, us-ascii, 0.2K]
I 2 Got a call from SBOE today [message/rfc822, 7bit, 14K]
I 3 ><no description> [multipa/related, 7bit, 12K]
I 4 ><no description> [multipa/alternativ, 7bit, 3.6K]
I 5 ><no description> [text/plain, quoted, us-ascii, 1.2K]
I 6 ><no description> [text/html, quoted, us-ascii, 1.9K]
I 7 >12758269.jpg [image/jpeg, base64, 8.8K]

filter_content is 'yes'
filter_mime_types is blank
pass_mime_types is: multipart/mixed, multipart/alternative, text/plain
filter_filename_extensions is exe, bat, cmd, com, pif, scr, vbs, cpl
pass_filename_extensions is blank
collapse_alternatives is 'yes'
convert_html_to_plaintext is 'yes'
for filter_action is 'Forward to List Owner'

Why was this message rejected?

(using 1:2.1.11-11 on debian)

--
"The ability to talk well is to a man what cutting and polishing are to
the rough diamond. The grinding does not add anything to the diamond. It
merely reveals its wealth." -- Orison S Marden
Rick Pasotto rick at niof.net http://www.niof.net

Search Discussions

  • Mark Sapiro at May 14, 2009 at 7:04 pm
    Rick Pasotto wrote
    One of my mailing lists rejected a message today and I don't understand
    why. The contents of the mailman message are:

    I 1 <no description> [text/plain, 7bit, us-ascii, 0.2K]
    I 2 Got a call from SBOE today [message/rfc822, 7bit, 14K]
    I 3 ><no description> [multipa/related, 7bit, 12K]
    I 4 ><no description> [multipa/alternativ, 7bit, 3.6K]
    I 5 ><no description> [text/plain, quoted, us-ascii, 1.2K]
    I 6 ><no description> [text/html, quoted, us-ascii, 1.9K]
    I 7 >12758269.jpg [image/jpeg, base64, 8.8K]

    filter_content is 'yes'
    filter_mime_types is blank
    pass_mime_types is: multipart/mixed, multipart/alternative, text/plain
    filter_filename_extensions is exe, bat, cmd, com, pif, scr, vbs, cpl
    pass_filename_extensions is blank
    collapse_alternatives is 'yes'
    convert_html_to_plaintext is 'yes'
    for filter_action is 'Forward to List Owner'

    Why was this message rejected?

    I don't know. If in fact the message Mailman saw was as described,
    content filtering should have removed the message/rfc822 part (and all
    its subparts - parts 2 through 7) but left part 1.

    Is the structure above the message sent to the list, or is it the
    'Content filtered message notification' you (the list owner) received
    from content filtering?

    If the latter, then the original message was essentially parts 3
    through 7, and it was filtered because you don't accept
    multipart/related.

    If you don't accept a particular multipart type, that part and all its
    sub-parts are filtered regardless of the types of the subparts. If you
    want to accept any text/plain part regardless of where it appears in
    the message hierarchy, set pass_mime_types to "multipart, text/plain"

    --
    Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
  • Mark Sapiro at May 15, 2009 at 12:32 am

    Mark Sapiro wrote:
    Rick Pasotto wrote
    One of my mailing lists rejected a message today and I don't understand
    why. The contents of the mailman message are:

    I 1 <no description> [text/plain, 7bit, us-ascii, 0.2K]
    I 2 Got a call from SBOE today [message/rfc822, 7bit, 14K]
    I 3 ><no description> [multipa/related, 7bit, 12K]
    I 4 ><no description> [multipa/alternativ, 7bit, 3.6K]
    I 5 ><no description> [text/plain, quoted, us-ascii, 1.2K]
    I 6 ><no description> [text/html, quoted, us-ascii, 1.9K]
    I 7 >12758269.jpg [image/jpeg, base64, 8.8K]
    [...]
    If the latter, then the original message was essentially parts 3
    through 7, and it was filtered because you don't accept
    multipart/related.
    As an aside to the original question, I think the MIME structure

    multipart/related
    multipart/alternative
    text/plain
    text/html
    image/jpeg

    is fundamentally wrong since the image/jpeg part is related to the
    text/html part and not to the multipart/alternative part. I think the
    proper MIME structure for this message is

    multipart/alternative
    text/plain
    multipart/related
    text/html
    image/jpeg

    i.e., the message consists of two alternative parts, one of which is
    text/plain and the other is text/html with an image.

    That said, I have seen the former structure often, notably I think with
    "stationery" from Microsoft MUAs.

    --
    Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
  • Stephen J. Turnbull at May 15, 2009 at 5:14 am
    Mark Sapiro writes:
    As an aside to the original question, I think the MIME structure >
    multipart/related
    multipart/alternative
    text/plain
    text/html
    image/jpeg >
    is fundamentally wrong since the image/jpeg part is related to the
    text/html part and not to the multipart/alternative part.
    I don't think you can say that in general, though. "Here's a picture
    of my new baby!" with a nice inline display for the HTML subpart, and
    presented by the MUA as an attachment for people who are momentarily
    restricted to text-only, seems like a common application.
    That said, I have seen the former structure often, notably I think with
    "stationery" from Microsoft MUAs.
    That's definitely wrong, though, if the image is part of the HTML
    stationery.
  • Rick Pasotto at May 15, 2009 at 11:46 am

    On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 02:14:31PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
    Mark Sapiro writes:
    As an aside to the original question, I think the MIME structure

    multipart/related
    multipart/alternative
    text/plain
    text/html
    image/jpeg

    is fundamentally wrong since the image/jpeg part is related to the
    text/html part and not to the multipart/alternative part.
    I don't think you can say that in general, though. "Here's a picture
    of my new baby!" with a nice inline display for the HTML subpart, and
    presented by the MUA as an attachment for people who are momentarily
    restricted to text-only, seems like a common application.
    That said, I have seen the former structure often, notably I think
    with "stationery" from Microsoft MUAs.
    That's definitely wrong, though, if the image is part of the HTML
    stationery.
    In this case, the image was the company logo. I think that would count
    as part of the stationery.

    --
    "Remember happiness doesn't depend upon who you are or what you have; it
    depends solely on what you think." -- Dale Carnegie
    Rick Pasotto rick at niof.net http://www.niof.net

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupmailman-users @
categoriespython
postedMay 14, '09 at 6:04p
activeMay 15, '09 at 11:46a
posts5
users3
websitelist.org

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase