Re: [Evolution] pjpeg revisited [OT]

[Not Zed <notzed ximian com>]

On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 13:49 -0700, Dan Stromberg wrote:
> It comes up a fair amount in a google search.  It's apparently a

Well, so does child pornography, it doesn't really mean there's any good in it :)

I mean, look at this page of wisdom ... image/x-bitmap is also a jpeg mime type!?

http://filext.com/detaillist.php?extdetail=JPG

> progressive jpeg.  Perhaps the distinction exists because some software
> groks jpeg but not progressive jpeg.  The difference is a nonissue to
> linux users, because the jpeg library we use understands both.

Yeah no doubt it is some poor attempt to workaround old/broken mailers.

> Why do I think microsoft has something to do with this?  :)

It wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't though.

Anyway, 2.0 will accept this and probably other bad aliases for registered types.