This is a forum where members new and old can come to ask questions and get info and opinions. It is not a place to advertise your business or have other forms of advertising, whether it be in your posts or signature.

All links in the forum will not be indexed by Search Engines and any unapproved forms of advertising or spam will be dealt with accordingly, deleted, and that member's account banned.

Forums

Overview » ASP » ASP Smart Mailer problems - message encoding (multipart/alternative not multipart/mixed) | base64 en

ASP Smart Mailer problems - message encoding (multipart/alternative not multipart/mixed) \| base64 en
Justin Moss Freaking Member Since: 20 Mar 2002 Posts: 52	Posted 06 Dec 2009 01:32:37 Dear DMXzone, We've recently discovered that email being sent with ASP Smart Mailer is increasingly being trapped by Spam filters, notably Postini (a Google product with increasing share). This is a serious issue. The various best practice guides and spam check services point out that the emails composed with Smart Mailer fail in two ways: 1) MIME encoding should be multipart/alternative - emails should contain both a Plain Text Part and an HTML part - ASP Smart Mailer currently only encodes as "multipart/mixed". This is causing Postini and possibly Yahoo to trap our emails. The SpamAssassin flag associated with this is "MIME_HTML_ONLY". Refs: Wikipedia \| SendBlaster 2) Base64 encoding unnecessary - according to a variety of online and software - base64 encoding is not required. Accordingly, it triggers a poor rating in the likes of the "FROM_EXCESS_BASE64" spam check field in SpamAssassin, Postini and others. Would you please indicate how we can: (a) include a plain text part in our HTML emails? (perhaps using a field maps to a plain text part), and (b) modify the smartmailer.inc code (or page code) to produce an email encoding other than base64? Your response would be appreciated greatly. Regards, Justin Dear DMXzone, We've recently discovered that email being sent with ASP Smart Mailer is increasingly being trapped by Spam filters, notably Postini (a Google product with increasing share). This is a serious issue. The various best practice guides and spam check services point out that the emails composed with Smart Mailer fail in two ways: 1) MIME encoding should be multipart/alternative - emails should contain both a Plain Text Part and an HTML part - ASP Smart Mailer currently only encodes as "multipart/mixed". This is causing Postini and possibly Yahoo to trap our emails. The SpamAssassin flag associated with this is "MIME_HTML_ONLY". Refs: Wikipedia \| SendBlaster 2) Base64 encoding unnecessary - according to a variety of online and software - base64 encoding is not required. Accordingly, it triggers a poor rating in the likes of the "FROM_EXCESS_BASE64" spam check field in SpamAssassin, Postini and others. Would you please indicate how we can: (a) include a plain text part in our HTML emails? (perhaps using a field maps to a plain text part), and (b) modify the smartmailer.inc code (or page code) to produce an email encoding other than base64? Your response would be appreciated greatly. Regards, Justin

ASP Smart Mailer problems - message encoding (multipart/alternative not multipart/mixed) | base64 en

Justin Moss
Freaking Member

Since: 20 Mar 2002
Posts: 52

Posted 06 Dec 2009 01:32:37

Dear DMXzone,

We've recently discovered that email being sent with ASP Smart Mailer is increasingly being trapped by Spam filters, notably Postini (a Google product with increasing share).

This is a serious issue. The various best practice guides and spam check services point out that the emails composed with Smart Mailer fail in two ways:

1) MIME encoding should be multipart/alternative - emails should contain both a Plain Text Part and an HTML part - ASP Smart Mailer currently only encodes as "multipart/mixed". This is causing Postini and possibly Yahoo to trap our emails. The SpamAssassin flag associated with this is "MIME_HTML_ONLY". Refs: Wikipedia | SendBlaster

2) Base64 encoding unnecessary - according to a variety of online and software - base64 encoding is not required. Accordingly, it triggers a poor rating in the likes of the "FROM_EXCESS_BASE64" spam check field in SpamAssassin, Postini and others.

Would you please indicate how we can:

(a) include a plain text part in our HTML emails? (perhaps using a field maps to a plain text part), and

(b) modify the smartmailer.inc code (or page code) to produce an email encoding other than base64?

Your response would be appreciated greatly.

Regards,
Justin

Dear DMXzone,

We've recently discovered that email being sent with ASP Smart Mailer is increasingly being trapped by Spam filters, notably Postini (a Google product with increasing share).

This is a serious issue. The various best practice guides and spam check services point out that the emails composed with Smart Mailer fail in two ways:

1) MIME encoding should be multipart/alternative - emails should contain both a Plain Text Part and an HTML part - ASP Smart Mailer currently only encodes as "multipart/mixed". This is causing Postini and possibly Yahoo to trap our emails. The SpamAssassin flag associated with this is "MIME_HTML_ONLY". Refs: Wikipedia | SendBlaster

2) Base64 encoding unnecessary - according to a variety of online and software - base64 encoding is not required. Accordingly, it triggers a poor rating in the likes of the "FROM_EXCESS_BASE64" spam check field in SpamAssassin, Postini and others.

Would you please indicate how we can:

(a) include a plain text part in our HTML emails? (perhaps using a field maps to a plain text part), and

(b) modify the smartmailer.inc code (or page code) to produce an email encoding other than base64?

Your response would be appreciated greatly.

Regards,
Justin

Patrick Julicher Official Representative Since: 04 Feb 2002 Posts: 1,208	Replied 06 Dec 2009 22:13:41 Hi Justin, Would you be so kind to move your post to one of the Support Forums for the Smart Mailer ASP. That way the Support TEam can be of assistance. Kind regards, Patrick

Justin Moss Freaking Member Since: 20 Mar 2002 Posts: 52	Replied 06 Dec 2009 22:37:20 Issue now located here (thank you Patrick)