brad.knowles at skynet.be
Wed Mar 10 06:09:18 EST 2004
At 2:09 AM -0700 2004/03/10, Jim Cole wrote:
> Based on the code, comments, etc. it appears that removal of all parts
> other than the first non-empty alternative is intended as a feature and
> considered a good thing. Is this correct?
I believe so, yes.
> If I were to simply remove the call to collapse_multipart_alternatives,
> would that allow the multipart/alternative part to slip through
> unmolested? Does later processing code depend on multipart/alternative
> parts being collapsed?
Why would you do this? What do you have in multipart/alternative
that would require this kind of action?
> Besides turning off filtering altogether, is there any other simple way
> to get Mailman to pass multipart/alternative as-is? Stripping
> alternatives is not likely to be acceptable for the environment to
> which we would be deploying.
Yes. Just list multipart/alternative as one of the formats to
pass unchanged. Go to "Content Filtering", then add
"multipart/alternative" to the "pass_mime_types" field (the second
big one on the page). Note that you have to have filtering turned on
for this to have any effect -- if you don't have filtering turned on
(the radio button at the top), then no filtering should be done.
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles at skynet.be>
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+
!w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++)
tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)
More information about the Mailman-Developers