Clarence or Glenn or someone wrote ...:
>>> Ahhhh, now you've touched on the "permanant fix".
>>> If we disregard "content-type", "content-encoding" and file extension
>>> but instead look inside the file itself to see what needs to be done. :)
>> No, I wouldn't recommend going to THAT extreme.
>> What I would like to see is pretty simple.<g>
>> If the extension and content-type agree, go with it.
>> If they disagree, use the extension.
I am *very* much in favor of something like that. I routinely get
graphics from someone in California who uses OE, and 90% of the jpg
files are shown by his software as being /tiff
Under those conditions Arachne just sits there and says "now what, d00d"
and I have to alt-E, modify the content of the message to reflect /jfif
and reload the mail. That's a damn pain, but the dozerware b00b can't
get it through his head that his browser is misclassifying stuff.
l.d.
-- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
