From: Daniel Stenberg (Daniel.Stenberg@sth.frontec.se)
Date: Thu Jul 29 1999 - 06:21:25 CDT
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Tom von Alten wrote:
Hi crowd! I'm back now, slowly trying to get back in speed and in synch with
my environment. Allow me a few days to acclimatize! ;-)
> However, in the archive, it was an "application/octet-stream attachment"
> and given a name ending in ".jpg_" My browser shows this as something
> less interesting than an image.
I can't tell how your mail program could find out it was actually an image
file.
Hypermail saves the file with the name it got supplied. If the file name had
a ".jpg_" extension it will be used.
When you browse that file with your browser it will probably treat it the way
the Content-Type it receives has been defined to behave. Since the web server
(probably) only recognizes .jpg as a JPEG picture I trust you'll get some
other (default) Content-Type for your .jpg_ picture. Probably
application/octet-stream or possibly html/text. Thus your browser will not
show it as a picture.
> Unfortunately, I don't have the original message to see exactly what it
> looked like - presumably the JPEG attachment *was* encoded as an octet
> stream. (Different than base64, I presume?)
No, you're mixing encoding and content. base64 is encoding and any content
may be coded with base64 (or quoted-printable or 7bit or...). A picture
should not be sent as a application/octet-stream. If it was a JPEG picture,
it should be sent as a 'image/jpeg'.
> My question is: should hypermail have been able to process this?
No, I can't see how it could have.
IF it had been 'image/jpeg' we COULD make hypermail to automatically set a
'image/jpeg'-extension which then could've made that mail to work as you
would've wanted.
IF you somehow configure your web server to send all ".jpg*" file names as
'image/jpeg'. Which your mail program probably did. It is possible you can
make your browser do this too. I think there's somewhere where you can tell
which suffixes that should do what.
> I will try to preserve another sample message before it's processed into
> the archive, but maybe someone can recognize the issue from these clues.
That would bring some light to this, yes.
--
Daniel Stenberg - http://www.fts.frontec.se/~dast
ech`echo xiun|tr nu oc|sed 'sx\([sx]\)\([xoi]\)xo un\2\1 is xg'`ol