On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 01:52:40PM -0200, Carlos Laviola wrote: > On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 04:12:15AM -0500, David Yitzchak Cohen wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 03:17:16AM -0200, Carlos Laviola wrote: > > > Reply-by: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:33:44 -0200 > > > > Huh? Does somebody turn into a pumpkin then? I mean, I'll be sleeping > > through it, unless there'll be fireworks or something. . . > > It's an Outlook exploit. It's like the X-Message-Flag that you and I > use (I saw it in your muttrc), but in this case it turns your message > bright red, since the date is in the past. LOL, so it _does_ turn into a pumpkin ... cool! > Unfortunately, I would have been able to show you some screenshots from > "The Anti-Outlook Page" at http://www.rodos.net/outlook, but rodos.net > is in registrar-lock mode for some odd reason. It's okay, I've got my own copy from the last time I looked at it. (I like to mirror most interesting stuff I come across on the 'net. It's more useful than simply bookmarking.) > But there's the google > cache (text only, of course): > > http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:CkZ6tGpzIhIJ:www.rodos.net/outlook/ I can't seem to find any mention of the "Reply-By:" exploit, though. I must be blind :-( > Some other pages: > > This muttrc I found while googling does almost the same thing I do: > > http://tony.rocks.cc/muttrc Yeah, my own version now is based on it: $ grep Reply-By ~/.mutt/muttrc my_hdr Reply-By: `LC_ALL=C date --date="-2 years"` > FWIW, the command I use is, suggestively, > > my_hdr Reply-By: `date --date="666 hours ago" +"%a, %d %b %Y %T %z"` Ah, whoops ... I just looked at "Tue" and figured you must mean tomorrow (which is now today, of course). I never guessed you'd leave me with only -666 hours to respond during ;-P - Dave -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgpFwoLhsWpOk.pgp
Description: PGP signature