[Mailman-Users] Encoding scrubbed attachment
Bausch, Jean
Jean.Bausch at fujitsu-siemens.com
Thu Aug 10 12:03:16 CEST 2006
Hi,
I am running Mailman 2.1.8 on a Solaris system and I have activated
scrub_nondigest for three lists - but the attachments can only be
correctly viewed for one of them.
When sending a mail with an attached .jpg, two of the lists
generate an encoded attachment leading to
- the display of something like
/9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQAAAQABAAD/2wBDAAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEB
AQEB
AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQH/2wBDAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEB
AQEB
AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQH/wAARCAHCAl4D
ASIA
when the URL is used in IE
- the display of a page containing only the URL with Firefox.
The third list stores an attachment which can be correctly viewed with
any browser.
I have compared the stored attachments and found that in the first case
the
attachment contains only printable text:
od -xc attachment.jpg | head
0000000 392f 2f6a 4134 5141 6b53 4a5a 6752 4241
/ 9 j / 4 A A Q S k Z J R g A B
0000020 5141 4141 5141 4241 4141 2f44 7732 4442
A Q A A A Q A B A A D / 2 w B D
0000040 4141 4245 5141 4245 5141 4245 5141 4245
A A E B A Q E B A Q E B A Q E B
0000060 5141 4245 5141 4245 5141 4245 5141 4245
A Q E B A Q E B A Q E B A Q E B
0000100 5141 4245 5141 4245 5141 4245 410a 4551
A Q E B A Q E B A Q E B \n A Q E
whereas the same command for the correctly working attachment gives the
following:
od -xc attachment.jpg | head
0000000 d8ff e0ff 1000 464a 4649 0100 0001 0100
377 330 377 340 \0 020 J F I F \0 001 001 \0 \0 001
0000020 0100 0000 dbff 4300 0100 0101 0101 0101
\0 001 \0 \0 377 333 \0 C \0 001 001 001 001 001 001 001
0000040 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101
001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001
*
0000120 0101 0101 0101 0101 ff01 00db 0143 0101
001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 377 333 \0 C 001 001 001
0000140 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101
The .jpg file was the same in all the experiments, and I can't find any
difference in the list configurations which could explain this
behaviour.
The only difference between the lists that I can think of is that the
third
has been created after my update to Mailman 2.1.8, the other two are
much
older.
Thanks for helping,
Jean Bausch
More information about the Mailman-Users
mailing list