Glenn,
I really think it's more than that. Like I told Clarence, I have a
couple a three different jpg settings in mime.cfg. For instance, I had
no problem with either of the example files showing up on my screen.
We're talking about JPGs here, folks! That's a rather standard
extension isn't it? IIRC, the mime.type shown in the attachment headers
was correct & proper for JPG.
Wish the problem were as simple as you imply ... <sigh>
l.d.
====
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 20:16:08 -0400, Glenn McCorkle wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:53:13 -0500, L.D. Best wrote:
>> I am really ... I mean *REALLY* ... sick and tired of the problem that
>> 1.70r3 has with appending extensions to attached files.
>> Yesterday it took me 3 edits just to get a jpg to display; today a
>> friend sent pictures of her new ass [donkey, honey bunch ... if I meant
>> arse I'd have said arse] and it will be easier for me to shell out &
>> rename them, then use the desktop for viewing. :<
>> Has anyone even bothered to figure out why sometimes the extension makes
>> it to the unattached file, and sometimes it doesn't???
> This is 100% dependent upon 2 items matching each other.
> 1) the mime-type used by the sender.
> 2) the setting for that mime-type in mime.cfg in the receiving Arachne.
> Examples:
> http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/zbm-fix.jpg
> http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/anything.jpg
