Jorey Bump wrote: > I would have had to recombine the mail with the attachments, somehow, > and this is where I am worried about proprietary format changes creeping > in.
Yes you would have to somehow recombine these. What I'm getting more curious about personally is what exactly is the mbox spec? Does it really break the spec to have a link to a file rather than having the file encoded? More stuff to look up tonight. > As far as the admin is concerned, he can bend over and tie my shoelaces! LOL!! Took me a while to stop laughing before I could reply. > Since I'm the admin, I certainly don't want to deal with user issues > caused by the new format breaking synchronization with IMAP accounts, or > other such bug-bears. As much as I've talked about Eudora here, I'm not a regular user of it. I've helped folks configure it and I'm as of recent getting a lot more educated about it. I do have several friends who have been using it as their primary mail client for a while. The general consensus I've gotten is that attachment stripping is a killer feature. This user I just converted over was about hopping for joy when I pointed this out. > As I mentioned, I would use an attachment-stripping feature, but I would > like it to be initiated by the user consciously, so I don't get irate > calls about my server stripping their attachments. I honestly don't know how Eudora deals with IMAP attachments. Another fair question that I will attempt to research and get back with this group on. Shooting from the hip here I'd guess that it leaves the message intact on the server. When the message gets accessed the attached files are decoded and stored in the same manner as if you had gone in as a POP3 client, to the local "attach" folder. I would further assume that the user would be prompted as to whether they wanted the attachments downloaded at all. Seems like the logical way to handle it anyway. Later on, -- "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." - Groucho Marx
