> [...]
> > Probably it is fine to display only files ending in '.txt' per default.
> > In addition a file that has more than say 1000 lines should probably 
> > also not be displayed (as default, optional OK).  
> 
> No, '.txt' would definitely not be enough for me. I'm using elog to log all
> administration of our network. In many cases, I simply attach a configuration
> file. All those files are plain ASCII and none of them end in '.txt' - and I
> would most definitely like them to be displayed inline like they are now. In
> fact, this change was the main reason for me to upgrade to 2.5.4
> 
> Maybe a configuration option or a "display attachment" button would be the
> best solution, then?
> 
> Cheerio,
> 
> Thomas

So to make everybody happy, it would probably be enough not to display inline any
*.ps file, is that right? Is there any other ASCII format, which should not be
displayed? PDF is binary, so it won't be displayed. What about long C files? Most
people want to see them. In the recent version there is the "Hide attachment"
link which can be clicked to not display an attachment inline. Mabe there should
be a "Hide default = 0|1" config option...

> At some point, in the last week or so, I upgraded the debian-unstable
> version (r1459-1) of elog.  Now, PostScript files (as attachments) are
> displayed (shown in ascii text, instead of just showing the link).  
> 
> Is there an option in the elog.cfg to only display certain files (like .gif
> or .jpg).

See elog:691 . In the latest CVS version, postscript files are not displayed
any more inline, but the next debian release will take some time, maybe you can
compile from source...

> > [...]
> > > Probably it is fine to display only files ending in '.txt' per default.
> > > In addition a file that has more than say 1000 lines should probably 
> > > also not be displayed (as default, optional OK).  
> > 
> > No, '.txt' would definitely not be enough for me. I'm using elog to log all
> > administration of our network. In many cases, I simply attach a configuration
> > file. All those files are plain ASCII and none of them end in '.txt' - and I
> > would most definitely like them to be displayed inline like they are now. In
> > fact, this change was the main reason for me to upgrade to 2.5.4
> > 
> > Maybe a configuration option or a "display attachment" button would be the
> > best solution, then?
> > 
> > Cheerio,
> > 
> > Thomas
> 
> So to make everybody happy, it would probably be enough not to display inline any
> *.ps file, is that right? 

I think there should be size limit.  Imagine a multi MB text file (whatever it is;
elogd.c is already more than 1/2 MB and is likely to increase due to your
excellent support).  A client on an ISDN line would have to wait
several minutes and during this time elogd is busy and no other client can connect
(correct?).  Of course, if somebody really wants to see this file then there is
nothing to be done, but likely someone is flipping throught the messages using
to arrows on top to find the right entry....
So a configurable size limit seems appropriate, from which on 
only 'Display attachment' is displayed.  And/Or, for files
exceeding this limit, the first N (new config option) lines could be displayed.

But this should only influence ASCII files.  E.g. the behaviour for jpeg files
should not change, which is controlled by 'Hide default'.  Maybe a 'Display/Hide
defaut extension' option, where the extensions are listed that are to be displayed
is another idea, in addition to a 'Max Display ASCII inline size' option,
which can be set to zero to disable it altogether.

In any case, whatever you think is best.

Cheers, Heiko

> Is there any other ASCII format, which should not be
> displayed? PDF is binary, so it won't be displayed. What about long C files? Most
> people want to see them. In the recent version there is the "Hide attachment"
> link which can be clicked to not display an attachment inline. Mabe there should
> be a "Hide default = 0|1" config option...

> So a configurable size limit seems appropriate, from which on 
> only 'Display attachment' is displayed.  And/Or, for files
> exceeding this limit, the first N (new config option) lines could be displayed.

Ok, I changed elogd such that only the first 1000 lines of inline attachments are
displayed, with a note of how many lines are truncated. By clicking on the attachment
name, one can still download the complete attachment. I guess the number of lines do
not have to be configurable, but if someone is not happy with the 1000 lines that could
be added.

> > > Couldn't one include the extra <table> tag only when there is really more than
> > > one attribute per line.  All other lines could then be aligned properly.

I added that code in revision 1.471.

Stefan, would it be ok to add the "minor" revision level to the VERSION
constant?  I've been doing this after I download source just so I can keep
things straight, you keep cranking out versions ;->

EX: 
#define VERSION "2.5.4-4"
BECOMES
#define VERSION "2.5.4-4-1.483" or something like that?

Just a thought.

Thanks

Sorry for that. The idea is that the -4 is the minor number between releases
(mainly for bug fixes and impatient users (;-) ). I accidently overwrote the
-4 version several times when testing a new RPM building scheme, but I promise
to take more care in the future (:-)))

Having the CVS revision in the executable is however a good idea and I will
put it in.

> Stefan, would it be ok to add the "minor" revision level to the VERSION
> constant?  I've been doing this after I download source just so I can keep
> things straight, you keep cranking out versions ;->
> 
> EX: 
> #define VERSION "2.5.4-4"
> BECOMES
> #define VERSION "2.5.4-4-1.483" or something like that?
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Thanks

No big deal - I looked at the code and you did a much more thorough job than I
would have done. Appreciate all of the hard work -- this product is masterful!

> Sorry for that. The idea is that the -4 is the minor number between releases
> (mainly for bug fixes and impatient users (;-) ). I accidently overwrote the
> -4 version several times when testing a new RPM building scheme, but I promise
> to take more care in the future (:-)))
> 
> Having the CVS revision in the executable is however a good idea and I will
> put it in.
> 
> > Stefan, would it be ok to add the "minor" revision level to the VERSION
> > constant?  I've been doing this after I download source just so I can keep
> > things straight, you keep cranking out versions ;->
> > 
> > EX: 
> > #define VERSION "2.5.4-4"
> > BECOMES
> > #define VERSION "2.5.4-4-1.483" or something like that?
> > 
> > Just a thought.
> > 
> > Thanks