[Mimedefang] Re: Who/what considers .eml attachments as harmful/suspect?

[Jan-Pieter Cornet]

On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 09:03:53AM -0800, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> --On Tuesday, November 06, 2007 4:09 PM -0800 Philip Prindeville 
> <philipp_subx at redfish-solutions.com> wrote:
> 
> >Maybe I'll fix it over Thanksgiving as a Christmas present to TB users...
> 
> Could MD just strip the suggested name? What Bad Things would happen if one 
> did this?

You could invalidate a digital signature.

Users wouldn't be able to easily save such attachments using dumb
clients.

You will eventually get a very puzzled supportdesk employee who has
a customer with a really weird problem.

In short: I'd think thrice before modifying any incoming email, apart
from the "standard" modifications that are RFC-approved (headers, and
charset encoding translations on body).

If you have any misbehaving clients who balk at seeing or not seeing
some extension, your problem lies there. So, to get back at the OP:
thunderbird should not care about .eml extensions on incoming mail,
and only look at the content-type (I believe that is already the
case), and it should do "the sensible thing" on outgoing mails, with a
possibility to change the default if the user wants to change the
default. Of course, in my humble opinion. I dare not suggest what
"the sensible thing" is, afraid of getting dragged in the holy war :)

-- 
Jan-Pieter Cornet <johnpc at xs4all.nl>
!! Disclamer: The addressee of this email is not the intended recipient. !!
!! This is only a test of the echelon and data retention systems. Please !!
!! archive this message indefinitely to allow verification of the logs.  !!