In our business, it is, unfortunately, very common for us to get
artwork sent in 2-6 times before the final approval is given.
Sometimes, the only way we know what art to use is by the revision
number of the filename. When we get an order and it says use the
"version 2" art, we have to make sure we grab "file2.pdf" and not "file
2.pdf".
("file2.pdf" being the real version 2 art. "file 2.pdf" being the
version 1 art that PowerMail renamed and added a "2")
So far, we haven't had an order go out wrong, but there has been some
confusion because of this renaming of files.
Justin
On Tuesday, February 28, 2006, at 10:21 AM, Mikael Byström wrote:
> Justin Beek said:
>
>> My main concern is the renaming of the attachments.
>
> Why is that? How are identically named files of any help? How do they
> convey information about the differences of their content, for example?
>
> A better solution IMHO would instead be to embrace renaming by actively
> sort to meaningful contexts (one folder per attachment is hardly
> meaningful) as well as rename incoming attachments with their original
> name plus additional information that would be different like the date
> and time. Keeping the proper extension of course.
>
> This way, there would be no question on what was the actual original
> name, as it would be known what added data looked like, and also with
> the
> added benefit of knowing when they had come in (with the original date
> &
> time you'd risk exact copies). Granted this is also in the meta-info of
> the file, but date & time is a reliable way of distinguishing equally
> named files from each other.
>
> I'm interested enough in the problem to look at scripting solutions.
> Cheshirekat wrote "Rename Existing Attachments" so that is probably a
> great starting point. Anyone else have already done such a thing?
>
> PM 5.2.3 Swedish | OS X 10.3.9 | Powerbook G4/400Mhz | 1GB RAM | 30GB
> HD
>
>
>
>
