Re: HTML inline, location of attachments

From: Daniel Stenberg <>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 08:13:56 +0100 (MET)
Message-ID: <Pine.SO4.4.05.9812040804250.20857-100000_at_wcsw062>

On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Tom von Alten wrote:

> Two items - first, it doesn't appear that an HTML attachment is properly
> stored as an attachment. I have hm_inlinehtml=0 but it's being overriden
> (or ignored). (This is with 2b12.)

Considering the problems with the increment flag, I'm no longer sure. But, I want to point out that the 'inlinehtml' keyword only controls attachments with content-type text/html while many HTML attachments are not using that content-type (it depends on the MUA). To be able to save such attachments according to the inlinehtml, we will need to come up with a decent "HTML tracker" function that will spot if the text/plain attachment is actually a HTML file....

> Secondly, I had asked (maybe in private email) about the possibility of
> storing attachments in subdirectories. We have a local 1.x version that
> makes subdirectories as needed, and puts the attachments in them. That
> keeps the archive directory cleaner, and is more likely to allow leaving
> the attachment name unmodified.
> For example (in our implementation), an attachment to 0123.html will be put
> in:
> .attachments/0123/
> Do others think this is worthwhile, if easy to do?

I like the idea and the concept. I'd like to see a config item that controls what kind of path to use for attachments, where the default makes the same directory as the mail files and some kind of %-thing will enable .attachments/0123/ contructions as well as plain .attachments/ or why not .attachments_0123/

We still have the problem of old attachments not being proper overwritten when using 'overwrite' ...

> Is this something that could be easily rolled in with the other 2.0
> changes?

I'd say it is pretty easy.

> Of course, I'd rather not delay 2.0 for new development at this point -
> there's enough work with just getting what's been undertaken so far
> operating properly.

So perhaps we should try to leave things at 2b12 level for the 2.0 release and move on to a 2.1 series with new things like this?

As before, I encourage other people to help out with modifications of hypermail. Working one at a time on it is not the optimal way.

   Daniel Stenberg     0708-317742
   ech`echo xiun|tr nu oc|sed 'sx\([sx]\)\([xoi]\)xo un\2\1 is xg'`ol
Received on Fri 04 Dec 1998 09:19:16 AM GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu 22 Feb 2007 07:33:50 PM GMT GMT