Re: [Pan-users] Re: Weirdness with multipart posts containing images

[Keith Richie]

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 2:44 PM, walt <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 01:35:24 -0400, Keith Richie wrote:
>
>
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Jim Henderson
>  > <address@hidden> wrote:
>  >>
>  >> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 21:22:43 +0000, walt wrote:
>  >>
>  >>  > On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 20:57:12 +0000, Jim Henderson wrote:
>  >>  >
>  >>  >> Other times, pan prompts me to save the image rather than viewing
>  >>  >> it; if I right-click the message in the header pane, I can select
>  >>  >> "read message" and it'll display properly.
>
>  >>  > ...the decision is
>
> >>  > based on the type of attachment, the number of lines in the
>  >>  > attachment, and the name of the newsgroup....
>
>
>  > In this case, it doesn't have anything to do with the number of lines,
>  > nor attachment type. The post in question has 7044 lines with a .jpg
>  > attachment. In the same group there is a 23841 line jpg which can be
>  > read without being prompted for download...
>
>  Interesting, I never noticed before that pan cares about the size of
>  the *parts* of the image, which in this particular case is 23841 lines
>  divided by five parts, thus making each part less than 5000 lines.
>  I'd have to consider that a bug, actually :o)
>
>
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Pan-users mailing list
>  address@hidden
>  http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users
>



Now that you mention *parts*, it seems like that's exactly what it is.

The images that are prompted to be downloaded are not split into
multipart segments, but lumped together. The larger posts that are
split, can be viewed just fine.

Every image posted as a single segment over 5000 lines is prompted to
be downloaded.

I thought there was some kind of standard that states each segment can
only have so many lines?