reply with attachment

[Miles]

Using TB 17.0.6 have an extension With Attachment which adds to the
Reply All & Reply buttons the drop down to include attachments. This
is not working -- a reply does in fact have the attachment window, but
it is blank, the attachment(s) is not there. I've emailed the
writer, but reply hasn't yet been received.

Does anyone happen to know of a method to reply or reply all and
include attachments, other than this extension?
Miles

[Furface]

I don't believe this Add-on will do what you want it to do. As some
reviews report:
"Does not automatically include attachments...
by iLoveFirefox on January 17, 2008 · permalink

Thunderbird has this annoying habit of not including attachments when
replying to an email that already has items attached. I thought this
add-on would automatically include the attachments when using the 'Reply
with attachments' option but it does not. It simply gives a warning and
an empty attachment box.

This is better than before, but not a complete solution to Thunderbird's
pure lack of functionality for 'reply' capabilities.

Any chances it will be enhanced?"

[Furface]

One further note on attachments. If you use the forward function
Thunderbird will include the attachment from the original email.

[Miles]

* Furface wrote, On 08-Jun-13 21:24:

Thanks, yes I was aware of the forward functionality and that's what
I've been using. Although I must admit that forwarding is a bit of
exercise as opposed to reply or reply all.

Wonder if there is a bug filed on this lack of TB's ability? If
anyone knows of it I'll certainly join in. Although if there is a bug
filed it's probably been there for years and nothing has or will be
done by Mozilla.

[Jim Porter]

On 06/07/2013 11:24 PM, Miles wrote:
> Does anyone happen to know of a method to reply or reply all and include
> attachments, other than this extension?

Assuming you only want to do this sometimes, and not all the time, the
easiest way would be to drag the attachments from the original email
onto the reply window (either to the address pane or the attachment pane).

- Jim

[Miles]

* Jim Porter wrote, On 09-Jun-13 08:53:

Thanks, Jim, that works, but what a dumb method. Will the programmers
ever wake up from their long sleep?

[Christian Riechers]

It sounds rather dumb to me to send the attachment back to the person
who sent it to you in the first place.

--
Christian

[gNeandr]

On 09.06.2013 07:42, Miles wrote:

It sounds dump to me to have such an habit.
As you should know (all) those extensions are build by programmers
typically in their private time. And sometimes those things are
discontinued .. also because of their private time.
Maybe you ask for getting your money back ..

[Roger Fink]

I'm amazed at some of the replies on this thread. in essence, "If you
don't like it, go *&@! yourself". The fact that people have been
complaining about this basic flaw since version 2 and now TB is in
version 22 apparently does not enter into the calculation as to whether
this is a problem worth fixing. Or the excuse of "we're volunteers so
there is no time", as meanwhile semi-perfected features destined for
little use are added that periodically send this board a-howling. It is
as though the developers are all worked at Microsoft, where there is a
presumption that they've got human behavior all figured out, so here's
The Ribbon and Windows 8 to go along with it..

The reason this never gets fixed is because the developers are more
interested in doing other things, and justify it after the fact.

Get the big stuff right, then add the lace and the frills. Geez...

[Peter Lairo]

How is this "the big stuff"? When someone sends you an attachment, why
would you want to send it back to him?
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo

Bugs I think are important:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=467153 Google Cal Setup
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=769476 Sync Reordering
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=446444 Sync for Thunderbird
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=391057 Write to Mac AB

Islam: http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam101/
Israel: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster: http://www.venganza.org/
Anthropogenic Global Warming skepsis: http://tinyurl.com/AGW-Skepsis

[Miles]

* Peter Lairo wrote, On 09-Jun-13 21:22:

Perhaps it's been edited, or you merely want to point out needed edits
it's at the fingertips of the original writer. Of course the same
would apply to other recipients. Does this also answer Chris' comment?

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Miles wrote:

> Peter Lairo wrote:
>> How is this "the big stuff"? When someone sends you an attachment, why
>> would you want to send it back to him?
>
> Perhaps it's been edited, or you merely want to point out needed edits
> it's at the fingertips of the original writer. Of course the same would
> apply to other recipients.

If it has been edited by the recipient who wants to send it back, it would
have been needed to be saved to the computer first. You couldn't make any
edits without doing that. Then, simply attach the saved-and-edited file to
the reply, as it is in fact a new file.

--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high

[Peter Lairo]

In order to edit the attachment, it must be saved to the computer first,
then edited, then attached to an e-mail. There is no way to edit an
attachment "inline" from within the e-mail program and save it directly
to the same e-mail as an attachment. This is the case with Forwarding
too, BTW. I guess it could be useful for collaborating on a file between
only two people (otherwise it would create a versioning mess), but this
seems an extreme edge-case. Most people will want a copy of the versions
on their computer, and nowadays there are numerous free cloud sharing
services to share files on without sending them back an forth via e-mail
(Cubby, Dropbox, SkyDrive, Google Drive, etc.).

Also, the original sender of the file should have his copy "at his
fingertips" in his *own* file directory.

And why do you say "perhaps"? You are the OP who wanted to be able to
send an attachment back to the sender via Reply. You must have a reason
for wanting this.

[Roger Fink]

This is not about workarounds or hypothetical situations. The foregoing
are subject to value judgments as to whether a threshold has been
crossed that makes including images in a reply worthwhile. That is by
definition a circular discussion, since different people under the exact
same circumstances will draw differing conclusion about the utility of
this feature.

On the other hand, years of constant complaining starting at the
inception of the product - there have probably been hundreds of threads
about this - is its own proof, and needs no further justification that a
solution is required. The specifics beyond that are subjective and not
important. My suspicion is that this omission is baked into the
underlying program code at such a deep level that no one is particularly
anxious to tackle it.

There is an analogous issue that occurs with SeaMonkey, in that it has
engendered a lot of complaints since the beginning, and they reappear
regularly including right now. In SeaMonkey you can't click an email URL
and bring up the email program unless it happens to be SeaMonkey.
Apparently, the software writers never considered that people might use
a different program for email. The best response to this as I recall it
was from a poster apparently involved with the program who said
basically that if this were an easy fix we would have done it. Fair
enough, and an A for candor.

[pop]

Miles said the following on 6/7/2013 11:24 PM:

Right click on the email and select "edit as new" and the attachment is
kept. Edit the "To:" with the desired address[es], and add any comments
to the email as needed. May not be what you want, but it should be close.

HTH
pop is Mark

[Peter Lairo]

Exactly. It is about where there is a *real* (not hypothetical) use-case
for including attachments in replies.

> The foregoing
> are subject to value judgments as to whether a threshold has been
> crossed that makes including images in a reply worthwhile.

Now we are talking about "images". Images can be *inserted* into the
*body* of an e-mail. When that is done, the image remains in the e-mails
in replies. Images that are *attached* are not included because
attachments are typically large, and there is little point in sending a
file back to a person who sent you the file (he already has that file).
The reason the e-mail text is included is because the size is trivial (I
think Lotus Notes and some web based e-mail portals by default do not
include the original message, and it is frustrating, because it is very
difficult to review what is being referred to in the current e-mail
text. But that's OT here.)

> That is by
> definition a circular discussion, since different people under the exact
> same circumstances will draw differing conclusion about the utility of
> this feature.

There's nothing "circular" about it. Just because someone wants
something, doesn't mean the demand is reasonable or desirable. It is
possible to rationally analyze something - including its subjective
aspects - and come to a reasonable conclusion.

> On the other hand, years of constant complaining starting at the
> inception of the product - there have probably been hundreds of threads
> about this - is its own proof, and needs no further justification that a
> solution is required.

I couldn't disagree more. Just because some people complain about
something by no means makes that complaint valid. There are a lot of
ignorant people on this planet who make ignorant demands on others. They
should not have their demands met (e.g. all the global
cooling/warming/changing hysteria, or the people who want YOU to live
under Sharia Law).

BTW: I have been following Mozilla's development very closely
(newsgroups, blogs, bugs) since its inception (less so in recent years),
and I can only recall one such request for keeping attachments in
replies. Far from "constant complaining" and not even an order of
magnitude close to your claimed "hundreds".

> The specifics beyond that are subjective and not
> important.

That sounds like "I want it, and my desire supersedes all other
criteria" (cloaked in a false claim that "the science is settled").

> My suspicion is that this omission is baked into the
> underlying program code at such a deep level that no one is particularly
> anxious to tackle it.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if changing the code to include
attachments in replies is very simple (it might even only be a setting).
The reasons it's not that way, are the same reasons that you are trying
to hand-wave away.

> There is an analogous issue that occurs with SeaMonkey, in that it has
> engendered a lot of complaints since the beginning, and they reappear
> regularly including right now. In SeaMonkey you can't click an email URL
> and bring up the email program unless it happens to be SeaMonkey.
> Apparently, the software writers never considered that people might use
> a different program for email. The best response to this as I recall it
> was from a poster apparently involved with the program who said
> basically that if this were an easy fix we would have done it. Fair
> enough, and an A for candor.

That example is one of the reasons the Mozilla Suite (now: SeaMonkey)
was split into Firefox and Thunderbird: The default e-mail program is
defined in the OS (not caught within the Suite), so an e-mail link
clicked in Firefox can open any e-mail program you define in the OS. But
that's OT here.

[Roger Fink]

-------- Original Message --------
> The foregoing
> are subject to value judgments as to whether a threshold has been
> crossed that makes including images in a reply worthwhile.
> Now we are talking about "images". Images can be *inserted* into the
> *body* of an e-mail. When that is done, the image remains in the e-mails
> in replies. Images that are *attached* are not included because
> attachments are typically large, and there is little point in sending a
> file back to a person who sent you the file (he already has that file).
> The reason the e-mail text is included is because the size is trivial (I
> think Lotus Notes and some web based e-mail portals by default do not
> include the original message, and it is frustrating, because it is very
> difficult to review what is being referred to in the current e-mail
> text. But that's OT here.)

Read closely your own snippet of the paragraph you are responding to.

>> That is by
>> definition a circular discussion, since different people under the exact
>> same circumstances will draw differing conclusion about the utility of
>> this feature.
> There's nothing "circular" about it. Just because someone wants
> something, doesn't mean the demand is reasonable or desirable. It is
> possible to rationally analyze something - including its subjective
> aspects - and come to a reasonable conclusion.

And just who is doing the judging here, software Philosopher Kings?

>> On the other hand, years of constant complaining starting at the
>> inception of the product - there have probably been hundreds of threads
>> about this - is its own proof, and needs no further justification that a
>> solution is required.
> I couldn't disagree more. Just because some people complain about
> something by no means makes that complaint valid. There are a lot of
> ignorant people on this planet who make ignorant demands on others. They
> should not have their demands met (e.g. all the global
> cooling/warming/changing hysteria, or the people who want YOU to live
> under Sharia Law).

Or several other more widely accepted isms in our own backyard, no? But
hey, who am I to judge.

>> There is an analogous issue that occurs with SeaMonkey, in that it has
>> engendered a lot of complaints since the beginning, and they reappear
>> regularly including right now. In SeaMonkey you can't click an email URL
>> and bring up the email program unless it happens to be SeaMonkey.
>> Apparently, the software writers never considered that people might use
>> a different program for email. The best response to this as I recall it
>> was from a poster apparently involved with the program who said
>> basically that if this were an easy fix we would have done it. Fair
>> enough, and an A for candor.
> That example is one of the reasons the Mozilla Suite (now: SeaMonkey)
> was split into Firefox and Thunderbird: The default e-mail program is
> defined in the OS (not caught within the Suite), so an e-mail link
> clicked in Firefox can open any e-mail program you define in the OS. But
> that's OT here.

No, not really OT, because it's an example of a small cadre of people
misunderstanding their own inability to grasp all the implications of a
decision that they make, which is apparently a hard concept to get
across (btw, I'm not sure you should be appropriating the decision of
what's OT here to yourself). I use SeaMonkey but I use Thunderbird for
email. How stupid is that? Well, for starters Firefox is in full
razzle-dazzle triple reverse mode these days and a lot of people don't
like it. SeaMonkey hasn't gotten there yet and with luck, will continue
to resist change for the sake of change. So for people using FF-TB,
SM-TB becomes a meaningful option. This could not have been anticipated
at the point of SM's creation, but a mature and not merely technically
gifted design staff would understand that they couldn't know everything
beforehand, and so make provisions for the most inclusive approach
possible. This should have been the case with early T-bird as well. IMO,
actually it was, but they just made a mistake here.