> 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
