OSEC

Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
 
From: Noel Jones (njones_at_megan.vbhcs.org)
Date: Thu Jan 02 2003 - 09:45:14 CST

  • Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

    At 09:55 AM 1/1/03 -0500, Jim Seymour wrote:
    >These two were meant to be questions--to solicit comment, confirmation
    >or correction:
    >
    > >
    > > I also added this at one time:
    > >
    > >
    > /^begin\s+\d+\s+.+?\.(ad[ep]|asd|ba[st]|c[ho]m|cmd|cpl|crt|dll|exe|hlp|hta|in[fs]|isp|jse?|lnk|md[be]|ms[cipt]|ocx|pcd|pif|reg|sc[rt]|sh[bs]|url|vb[esx]?|vxd|ws[cfh])\b/
    > REJECT
    > >
    > > which I imagine is there to defeat uuencoded or base-64 content. (I
    > > really have been inconsistent in commenting my "checks" files.) Not
    > > clear on whether that one should stay in body_checks, be moved to
    > > header_checks, be in both or is no longer necessary.
    > >
    > > I would imagine the old:
    > >
    > > /^\s+(file)?name="?.+?\.(ad[ep] ...
    > >
    > > can go away, as that was in body_checks to catch "continued"
    > > "Content-(Disposition|Type):" lines, right?
    >[snip]
    >
    >So, um, anybody?

    The UUencode test needs to stay in body_checks.

    The test for "continued" Content- lines can go away; mime_header_checks
    folds multiline headers automatically. 

    --
Noel Jones