Hello Manuel, > Thanks for your analysis. TB! shouldn't edit the message, TB! should > simply decode the filenames given in standard iso-8859-1. > Nevertheless, perhaps you might add a note about your results to BT.
What is the link for that BT? Manuel: the mail you sent out was an example that TB! CANNOT SEND mails with that tricky names, because TB! cannot transform the names correctly. If I would be the programmer, it would be 2 mins to solve it because it is a bug and I defined the location of the bug. So I will push it them to solve :) (I copied the tricky filename to the subject line, saved the mail to the Outbox, opened the source and from the Subject: line I copied the correctly encoded filename to the source of your original mail :)) This is how I know what the correct encoded name should be for your tricky filenames... So, TB! KNOWS how to encode the name, correctly. It does ok when you put that name in the Subject line, but it makes mistake when it has to convert the same string, e.g. your tricky filename, as the name of the attach.) But: Ok, we are at halfway. Because your example showed that TB! send out the mail with INCORRECT attach name conversion. BUT: if I understood well, sometimes you or someone got emails from users with other email clients where the attachname is different from the one TB! displays... Can someone send me a MSG export or Unix mailbox export of a mail in PM that has this strange error (not correctly decoded name of the attach by TB!) and the mail sender DID not use TB!? I handle the mail discrete. Pleeeeaaaassseeee? Lets solve this problem for once and for all. Mary sent me an example for PART.ATT, but that is a differen issue. In that case NO filename was assigned. The sender used Apple and a PART.ATT was displayed as attach. My PM answer was to her: "I checked it, thanks! So, if I see well, PART.ATT stands for the HTML or enriched part of the mail IF the mail is coming from Apple computer. (And its enriched part is not correctly decoded, I guess). It is like when you have message.html when you got the mail sent to you as plain text and as HTML, also. As no name is provided for the HTML part, TB! assigns the message.html or the PART.ATT names to it. If I would be the TB! programmer, I would not use this method but would use "Click here to see the HTML/enriched part of the mail" button in this case... The real problem is that every email client makes up there standard sometimes, and e.g. Outlook programmers FIND the solution for nonstandard emails, while TB! says: It is not RFC compatible, I dont do anything... The market likes the previous (Outlook style) problem solving. Advantage: flexible, disadvantage: encourage for not to use the standards... " -- Vili The Bat 3.51.10 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Szervizcsomag 1 ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
