[dev] Fwd: Re: Patch I submitted

[Conor Kerr]

Hi,

> Following the sender's instructions versus ignoring the sender's instructions.

That doesn't answer my question... I asked about the practical
difference.  Please don't be so flippant.

> You are wrong here.

I suppose depending on the case in question we are both wrong and both
right.  However my case affects around 70% of people using email
including most of the "general" users, yours affects considerably less
and almost exclusively the more "advanced" users.  This is the real life
situation we are in, I am willing to bet it will not be in danger of
changing for many, many years.

>  The sender may actually have a good reason to
> send an image as an attachment which should not be viewed inline.
> To ignore the sender's wishes could potentially cause problems for the
> receiver.  That means making the receiver's life more difficult, not
> simpler.

You have taken a rather less probable case and are trying to use it to
nullify any arguments by a HUGELY more probable case.

> If they were implemented in a more absolute and unfoundering way, then
> you wouldn't be getting all those base64 encoded attachment disposition
> images.  Your argument is flawed.

You could perceive it as flawed if you ignored what I said in my last
post... I am talking about the real-life situation, not the idealistic
one.  As I specifically said in my post I would *love* it if all the
software of the world held up to worthwhile standards but we have to be
realistic and practical.  I'm not intending to be offensive by saying so
but you should really read any post carefully that you are going to
reply to.

<snip!>

> People sometimes email images for reasons other than viewing them!

Yes, I know,  I am well aware of the fact , that's why I created an
option to disable this feature.  Usability dictates that the simplest
and most general case should be used as standard but options provided to
allow the more competent users to tailor system to their needs.

The average user is sent images to look at, people like me and you
might require more though...  I do a lot of publishing work myself so I
know all about the inconveniences of large resolution images and such
like.  However in this particular regard these images aren't really a
problem as they won't be displayed inline by IMP anyway, only files
which the browser supports will (like gifs, pngs and jpegs), psds, eps'
etc. will simply result in a link as they always have.

That specific case of course doesn't negate the many other cases which
could occur.  But as I said even if you add these many other cases up
their total proportion is tiny in comparison to the more general case
and these more advanced users can simply disable this feature.

I feel that my solution is the most realistic one *given the way IMP
works* but I would like to hear if there are any technical arguments
against it... otherwise I see no reason why it should not be committed.

Thanks for replying, I hope you can understand where I am coming from
now.

All the best...

Conor

--
Conor Kerr
Amiga Developer, Ceon Ltd., Northern Ireland
www.ceon.net  conor at dev.ceon.net