nanog mailing list archives
RE:
From: "Keith Medcalf" <kmedcalf () dessus com>
Date: Sat, 09 May 2015 09:05:48 -0600
Ah. Security hole as designed. inline dispositions should be ignored unless the recipient specifically "requests" to see them after viewing the text/plain part. In fact, I would vote for ignoring *everything* except the text/plain part unless the recipient specifically requests it after viewing the text/plain part. No test/plain? Delete without further ado.
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces () nanog org] On Behalf Of Mark Andrews Sent: Friday, 8 May, 2015 00:39 To: Paul Ferguson Cc: NANOG Subject: In message <mailman.3786.1431050203.12477.nanog () nanog org>, Paul Ferguson via N ANOG writes:Does anyone any else find it weird that the last dozen or so messages from the list have been .eml attachments?Nanog is encapsulating messages that are DKIM signed. Your mailer may not be properly handling Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka () isc org
Current thread:
- [no subject] Paul Ferguson via NANOG (May 07)
- [no subject] Mike Hammett via NANOG (May 07)
- [no subject] Nathan Angelacos via NANOG (May 07)
- [no subject] Nathan Angelacos via NANOG (May 07)
- Re: Christopher Morrow (May 07)
- Re: Ted Cooper (May 07)
- [no subject] Mike Hammett via NANOG (May 07)
- [no subject] Joel Esler (jesler) via NANOG (May 07)
- [no subject] Mark Andrews (May 07)
- RE: Keith Medcalf (May 09)
- Re: Jim Popovitch (May 09)
- Re: Stephen Satchell (May 09)
- Re: [probably spam, from "NANOG" <nanog-bounces () nanog org>] John Levine (May 09)
- RE: [probably spam, from "NANOG" <nanog-bounces () nanog org>] Keith Medcalf (May 09)
- RE: Keith Medcalf (May 09)