PatrickG wrote:
Barbara Duprey wrote:
When I tested this, I used an unsubscribed gmail address. When viewing
via Thunderbird(IMAP) the attachments are clearly visible. However, when
viewed though the gmail web interface there are no attachments, just the
in-line digest. Additionally, if I use SquirrelMail to access my
subscribed account, there are no attachments there either.
I guess that means some of what we have discussed is truly in the hands
of how clueful (thinking positive here) the unsubbed poster is.
PatrickG.
Thanks for the testing, Patrick. I don't know what proportion of
unsubs might be using an uncooperative mail client, but we'd have to
cover that in the instructions. Surely the mail client can't get away
with just discarding attachments, can it? Generally there's either the
icon display at the bottom, or a field in the displayed header with a
list. What happens to other kinds of attachments when somebody uses
these interfaces?
Upon further review, it appears that SquirrelMail does indeed include
the attachments (as an html link which opens in a new window), just no
'extension' on the attachment [I guess I had a serious case of OHS on
this one ;-) ]. Gmail is showing the attachments in-line instead of as
attachments, so I guess that means they really are there, just not as
separate mails.
So far I have tested w/ positive results on Outlook2007 (I assume OE
would work but don't have it installed), Thunderbird 2.0.0.23, The Bat!
4.x and SquirrelMail 1.4.20 (web based application); all running on
Windows XP and Windows 7. If need be I can fire up a couple of 'nix
systems and test there as well.
Overall, I would say this may be a good solution to UPs, especially if
it can be automated. As an aside, I think what Harold was doing was good
as well (though not sure where he found the time). About the only real
difference I see between what he does and what you propose, is that your
solution would allow for retrieval of the entire thread in one message.
Thanks again to both you a and Harold.
Keep up the good work.
PatrickG.
The fact that there is a workaround that comes out reasonably well, as
long as there are people on the list who care enough to try to make it
work (thanks, Harold!), probably explains why nothing has been done
about this in all these years. But if we can reduce this to a single
communication with the UP and shift the work to the person who needs an
answer, especially if it can be automated, that should be better for the
long term. Among other things, I think there's a ripple from this over
into the "unsubscribe me" stuff, when people are advised to subscribe so
they can see responses and then get swamped, irritated, or dismayed by
the message volume and just want out. There's something else going on
there that's probably a worse problem, though, and I'm still trying to
track that down.
You're doing a great job testing this -- thanks for putting in all the
effort!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
