Matt Coughlin wrote: > > Along a similar line, I'm hesitant to consider replacing the data of an > attachment with text info (as opposed to removing the attachment > altogether), because it would either be awkward (if the user can delete > or save the text-info replacement) or there'd be special functionality > (for distinguishing between original attachments and text-info > replacements) that other e-mail clients likely wouldn't support. > > Plus, for any e-mail clients that don't display text attachments inline > (if such clients exist), the user wouldn't have any visible indication > of the e-mail having been altered. > > At the moment, I'd favor removing the attachments altogether, appending > text info to the end of each alternate version of the message body, and, > if needed, adding a header flag that's added and forgotten.
How about replacing the attachment with an attachment of type message/external-body with an access-type of "LOCAL-FILE", as defined in RFC 2046 <http://www.nacs.uci.edu/indiv/ehood/MIME/2046/rfc2046.html#5.2.3>? That could contain all of the necessary information (a short disclaimer could go in the attachment's "phantom body"). -- Mozilla 1.0 Guide: http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0/guide/ Mozilla 1.0 FAQ: http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0/faq/ End-user discussion and peer support: snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.general snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.win32 snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.mac snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.unix
