Re: Patch: Don't add attachment icon quite as often

[Toralf Lund <toralf kscanners com>]

On 2001.08.22 15:31 Brian Stafford wrote:
> On Wed, 22 August 13:38 Toralf Lund wrote:
> 
> > The patch introduces the distinction between a multipart message and a
> > "message with attachments", which I think is important to keep. It is
> > obvious that "multipart" does not mean the same as "having
> attachments",
> > since there is something called "multipart/alternative"
> 
> Whether a message is considered to have attachments is determined by the
> Content-Disposition: MIME header described in RFC 2183 and should not be
> inferred from the MIME type.
> 
> Brian Stafford
You're right, of course. I didn't even look into this, though, as the point
I was trying to make was that Balsa's original assumption that everything
multipart has attachments, and also that there are multiple parts only if
attachments exist, is wrong.

I will see if I can make another quick fix of
libbalsa_message_has_attachment(), though...

- Toralf