Re: filename problem

 grp_at_med.uoc.gr (G G Papazoglou) writes:
>underscore approach seems to work, provided that, if there is more than
>one attachments, they have different filename lengths (it's obvious
>why). So in my opinion, it would be nice if you would give us the option
>to rename all the attachments sent in a message to something like
>"attachmentXXX.###" (preserving the original extension, but using a
>fixed latin string (plus the number i for the i-th attachment) instead
>of underscores. In this way, the filename length issue is avoided, and
>the result is obviously much more appealing than the underscore approach.

 I have added an option called filename_base which sets the main string to be used in attachment names. The extension will be added to the end if one is found (i.e. attachment.###).
 I haven't tried to make the attachment number show up in the name that the user normally sees, but for attachments other than the first, the attachment number is inserted at the beginning of the actual filename and url. This attachment number has always been getting inserted like that, so there was never any significant risk of filename clashes.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter McCluskey          | Please check out my new blog:
www.bayesianinvestor.com | http://www.bayesianinvestor.com/blog/