I am having the same problem with SQWebmail (3.4.0.20021026).  Is the
problem with SQWebmail or has any one else had this problem?  Will a
SQWebmail upgrade solve the problem?  Is there a fix?

HELP!!!    ;o)

Thanks in advance.

Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 2:57 PM
Subject: [sqwebmail] Trouble sending attachments with SQWebmail 3.4


> Hi There,
>
> I am re-sending this message to the list in hopes that someone new to the
> list will have an answer. I apologize to those who have already read
> it.....
>
>
> I have been running an older version of vpopmail and SQWebmail for a year
> or so. A few days ago I came across some problems... one thing led to
> another, and I decided to upgrade to the newer versions.     I installed
> vpopmail 5.2.1 with MySQL authentication (working OK), and then installed
> the latest version of SQWebmail (marked as 3.4.0.20021026) .
>
> I am having trouble with sending attachments from SQWebmail. When I attach
> a file to the message and send it to another SQWebmail users, the
> attachments come back just fine, but when a regular POP client (tested
with
> Outlook Express) receives such a message from an SQWebmail user, the
> attachment's file names get changed to a short name like ATT00045.doc .
For
> file types other than word, the file extension also often gets changed to
> .dat so that an attachment like "WIM Simple Network Diagram.vsd" ( a MS
> Viso Drawing) will appear to the recipient as ATT0053.dat.
>
> This is causing a few of my customers to get quite annoyed with me, so if
> anyone has an answer to this, I would love to hear about a fix.
>
> As a side note: When I try the same test from the SQWebMail installation
on
> Inter7 (http://webmail.inter7.com) I do not see this bug. The attachments
> come through just fine.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Fred Read
> Web In Motion
> Web Hosting and Managed Colocation
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.webinmotion.net
> Phone: (905) 261-3165
> Fax: (905) 438-1468
>
>
>
>


Reply via email to