> As I recall this is also described in the archives... If my egg-nog
> clouded memory can be relied upon, the limit on the file name is
> somewhat arbitrary and you can easily hack the source so that it does
> not get truncated.
>
> This was also discussed at length in the archives, and the
> ex
On Tue, 2003-12-23 at 12:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I tried searching the archives but found nothing about it. I guess my
> search terms were not good enough.
>
> It is not a problem with the mail client. I did debug tracing on the
> clients to see what was being passed before I submitted a bu
> Read through the thread. No it didn't help. I change the filebase,
> ignore to filebase, ext like the thread indicated but I still end up
> with the same thing. The problem is the mailman handles the file name
> and the fact that users are using long file names. Its not a problem
> with the exten
See below...
- Original Message Follows -
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > ] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:10 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:10 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman drops extension of attachment
>
>
> I tr
I tried searching the archives but found nothing about it. I guess my
search terms were not good enough.
It is not a problem with the mail client. I did debug tracing on the
clients to see what was being passed before I submitted a bug report.
The client identifies the attachment correctly as a pd
This *exact* problem was discussed in the archives awhile back. If
memory serves me correctly the problem then was that the email client
used a generic type of mime file type identifier rather than a more
proper one that identified the file type properly as pdf.
Mailman then treats this as a gener
I have not had any response on this. Does anyone have any info they
can share with me on it?
- Original Message Follows -
> We just sent out a message to our employees. There calling because
> they can't open the pdf attachment.
>
> Looking at it, it looks like the .pdf part is missing f
We just sent out a message to our employees. There calling because
they can't open the pdf attachment.
Looking at it, it looks like the .pdf part is missing from the
attachment name in the message. If you know what to do you can open
the attachment. But the browser does not know what to do with it
