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

[Brian Stafford <brian stafford uklinux net>]

On Wed, 22 August 15:12 Toralf Lund wrote:
> 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.

Fair comment.  The real difficulty with attachments is that whether a part is
an attachment depends to some extent on the intentions of the human message
sender.

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