When I send an attachment to other people, they don't see them where they usually expect them.
Let me clarify: the people that receive my attachment, don't see the paperclip next to my messages. But when they look inside the mail, they can find the attachment hidden somewhere inside the message. They don't see the attachments where they would see them if I had sent the message with another mailer (i.e. Outlook). These people use MS Outlook. One of them can't find the attachments at all, I think she uses the Yahoo web interface. I don't know exactly what they see, since I have never seen one of my messages to them in Outlook.
I've checked the Pine FAQ and the 'Pine-Info discussion list' archive at http://www.washington.edu/pine, but to no avail. Also the changelogs have no information about this being a bug that has been solved.
Now it has become a real problem because I need to send attachments to the one that can't find them at all!
Some info that might be useful: Pine 4.21 Slackware Linux 7.1 on Intel
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Francisco Canedo wrote: > Hi,
> When I send an attachment to other people, they don't see them where > they usually expect them.
> Let me clarify: the people that receive my attachment, don't see the > paperclip next to my messages. But when they look inside the mail, they > can find the attachment hidden somewhere inside the message. They don't > see the attachments where they would see them if I had sent the message > with another mailer (i.e. Outlook). > These people use MS Outlook. One of them can't find the attachments at > all, I think she uses the Yahoo web interface. I don't know exactly what > they see, since I have never seen one of my messages to them in Outlook.
OK, so some of these recipients using Outlook can find the attachments by examining the message, but they just don't see a very convenient icon that is easy to click on to automagically decode the attachment and display it using the program that the attachment type is associated with. You should just simply tell them that they will need to manually decode the attachments. Going through this procedure is just a very minor hassle and it is very easy to do. If your recipients were to use a DOS email client then it would be even easier for them to manually decode an attachment.
> > When I send an attachment to other people, they don't see them where > > they usually expect them.
> > Let me clarify: the people that receive my attachment, don't see the > > paperclip next to my messages. But when they look inside the mail, they > > can find the attachment hidden somewhere inside the message. They don't > > see the attachments where they would see them if I had sent the message > > with another mailer (i.e. Outlook). > > These people use MS Outlook. One of them can't find the attachments at > > all, I think she uses the Yahoo web interface. I don't know exactly what > > they see, since I have never seen one of my messages to them in Outlook.
> OK, so some of these recipients using Outlook can find the > attachments by examining the message, but they just don't see > a very convenient icon that is easy to click on to automagically > decode the attachment and display it using the program that the > attachment type is associated with. You should just simply tell > them that they will need to manually decode the attachments. > Going through this procedure is just a very minor hassle and it is > very easy to do. If your recipients were to use a DOS email > client then it would be even easier for them to manually decode an > attachment.
Get real. No MS Windows users in 2001 are going to "manually decode" attachments, not are they going to use "DOS email clients" (assuming they could).
As for the OP's question, I just tried the experiment of sending a mail with an Excel (.xls) file attached, from pine 4.33 under Linux, then reading the mail in Netscape. The attachment showed up just fine, paperclip and all.
It seems there are two possibilities:
(1) The OP is failing to create attachments properly. How are you doing it? Hitting Ctrl-J on the "attachments" line in the header in pine, then locating the file and adding a "comment"? If not, try that procedure.
(2) MS has built some devilish contrivance into Outhouse that prevents it from parsing attachments added using other MUAs. Wouldn't put it past them.
Anyway, you (Canedo) might try the experiment of looking at one of your outgoing attachment-encrusted emails in Netscape mail. If the attachments show OK there but not in Outhouse, we know what's happening.
Allin Cottrell.
-- Allin Cottrell Department of Economics Wake Forest University, NC
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Allin Cottrell wrote: > "Samuel W. Heywood" wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Francisco Canedo wrote:
> > > When I send an attachment to other people, they don't see them where > > > they usually expect them.
> > > Let me clarify: the people that receive my attachment, don't see the > > > paperclip next to my messages. But when they look inside the mail, they > > > can find the attachment hidden somewhere inside the message. They don't > > > see the attachments where they would see them if I had sent the message > > > with another mailer (i.e. Outlook). > > > These people use MS Outlook. One of them can't find the attachments at > > > all, I think she uses the Yahoo web interface. I don't know exactly what > > > they see, since I have never seen one of my messages to them in Outlook.
> > OK, so some of these recipients using Outlook can find the > > attachments by examining the message, but they just don't see > > a very convenient icon that is easy to click on to automagically > > decode the attachment and display it using the program that the > > attachment type is associated with. You should just simply tell > > them that they will need to manually decode the attachments. > > Going through this procedure is just a very minor hassle and it is > > very easy to do. If your recipients were to use a DOS email > > client then it would be even easier for them to manually decode an > > attachment.
> Get real. No MS Windows users in 2001 are going to "manually decode" > attachments, not are they going to use "DOS email clients" (assuming > they could).
<snip>
Why not? If your Windows stuff won't work for you the way it is supposed to, then sometimes the only way to deal with the problem is to go to the command line and start working from there. By viewing an email message in DOS you can always see the whole thing. Nothing can "hide" from DOS. By "manually decoding" I mean simply performing the simple task of calling up an appropriate decoding program from the command line and including the proper parameters for the input file and output file as necessary. Presto! The attachment is decoded almost instantly! Even if one is using a Windows email client he can easily view his email messages from within any DOS mode. When an email message is viewed from within a simple DOS mode the user will always be able to see the whole thing.
"Samuel W. Heywood" wrote: > > Get real. No MS Windows users in 2001 are going to "manually decode" > > attachments, not are they going to use "DOS email clients" (assuming > > they could).
> Why not? If your Windows stuff won't work for you the way it is > supposed to, then sometimes the only way to deal with the problem > is to go to the command line and start working from there.
I like the command line myself (in an xterm), but my point is that the command line is simply terra incognita for Windows users (OK, with a trivial number of exceptions such as yourself). Saying to a colleague, "Of course you can decode my attachments; all you have to do is open a DOS box and..." is as good as cutting your throat with a rusty razor.
-- Allin Cottrell Department of Economics Wake Forest University, NC
On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, Allin Cottrell wrote: > "Samuel W. Heywood" wrote:
> > > Get real. No MS Windows users in 2001 are going to "manually decode" > > > attachments, not are they going to use "DOS email clients" (assuming > > > they could).
> > Why not? If your Windows stuff won't work for you the way it is > > supposed to, then sometimes the only way to deal with the problem > > is to go to the command line and start working from there.
> I like the command line myself (in an xterm), but my point is that > the command line is simply terra incognita for Windows users (OK, > with a trivial number of exceptions such as yourself). Saying to > a colleague, "Of course you can decode my attachments; all you > have to do is open a DOS box and..." is as good as cutting your > throat with a rusty razor.
Yes, I too have observed that most Windows users have a most extraordinary aversion to the idea of learning how to do anything within DOS. I never could understand their negative attitude. It really baffles me as to why they don't even want to hear about the highly useful information I can give them.
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Allin Cottrell wrote: >"Samuel W. Heywood" wrote: >>On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Francisco Canedo wrote: >>>When I send an attachment to other people, they don't see them >>>where they usually expect them.
>>>Let me clarify: the people that receive my attachment, don't see >>>the paperclip next to my messages. But when they look inside the >>>mail, they can find the attachment hidden somewhere inside the >>>message. They don't see the attachments where they would see them >>>if I had sent the message with another mailer (i.e. Outlook). >>>These people use MS Outlook. One of them can't find the attachments >>>at all, I think she uses the Yahoo web interface. I don't know >>>exactly what they see, since I have never seen one of my messages >>>to them in Outlook.
>(2) MS has built some devilish contrivance into Outhouse that >prevents it from parsing attachments added using other MUAs.
We observe this problem also using 4.33 and 4.40. It only occurs with Outlook XP. Earlier versions of Outlook see the attachments.
