Re: Attaching images to posts

[Aaron Hill]

On 2018-11-18 2:07 am, Thomas Morley wrote:
> > In the past I have just made an attachment to the post,
>
> Please continue to do so.
> Speaking only for myself, frequently I don't see inline images here.
> Sometimes there is some hint an image could be there, then I have to
> look into the archives, which is tedious. Sometimes there is nothing
> at all...
>
> Though, I think I'm not the only one refusing to allow inline-images
> generally.

You are not alone.  I have my webmail client set to text-only email, so 
I can usually only see images that are attachments.  Linked images work 
(like those from nabble), since the client shows the URL which I can 
then open in a new tab.

However, inline images are hit-and-miss.  When the email size is 
obviously large enough that there is something more than just text but 
no attachments are shown, it is likely the image was embedded in HTML.  
My webmail client does offer an option to selectively switch a single 
email to HTML.  But this does not always work, forcing me to seek out 
the email on the gnu.lists.org archive or nabble.

Given all that, it is my preference to only send emails as pure text 
and, if needed, include small* attachments, since it has the highest 
chance of being read by all clients out there.  (* PNGs work very well 
for music notation even at high DPI.)

The only gotcha I have found is that you need to be careful when 
including LilyPond markup in the email.  Quoting content from other 
folks is done by using one or more greater-than signs at the beginning 
of a line.  However, LilyPond includes "<< >>" as part of its syntax.  I 
try to format the code to avoid the ">>" ever being at the beginning of 
a line, otherwise mail clients (like mine) will misinterpret it as a 
quote.

-- Aaron Hill