Re: questions regarding limit attachment size

On Tue, 12 May 2015 11:28:28 -0400 Shawn Moore
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > 2015/05/12 8:49、Christian Loos <[email protected]> のメール：
> > 1. Is it really necessary to log the first 60 characters of a dropped
> > attachment [1]?
> 
> I think this is done to make dropped attachments easier to debug. One
> of the ways to triage any RT problem is to inspect the logs, and
> including a snippet of the email helps in identifying the problem.

Is it necessary?  No.  Potentially useful? Yes.

> > 2. As RT creates a attachment drop transaction (since RT 4.2.7), is it
> > still necessary to create a text attachment with the Content "Large
> > attachment dropped" for dropped attachments [2]?
> > The informations the text attachments make available are also available
> > by the "attachment drop" transaction (date, user, filename, filesize)
> > and thus are redundant (just to note that the transaction also shows the
> > $MaxAttachmentSize).
> 
> I don’t have any insight into this one, but I’m open to getting rid of
> the old-style transaction if we can! It’s possible it was intentionally
> kept around to help preserve backwards compatibility with existing
> customizations.

In part backwards compatibility -- in part, to have a placeholder
attachment, for forwards and the like.  It is not obviously more
correct to me to have the representation of the email have a _lack_ of
attachment, then to have an attachment whose role is to signal that
there _was_ an attachment.

 - Alex