Join the AMA (Ask Me Anything) with the Firefox leadership team to celebrate Firefox 20th anniversary and discuss Firefox’s future on Mozilla Connect. Mark your calendar on Thursday, November 14, 18:00 - 20:00 UTC!

This site will have limited functionality while we undergo maintenance to improve your experience. If an article doesn't solve your issue and you want to ask a question, we have our support community waiting to help you at @FirefoxSupport on Twitter and/r/firefox on Reddit.

Avatar for Username

ابحث في الدعم

Avoid support scams. We will never ask you to call or text a phone number or share personal information. Please report suspicious activity using the “Report Abuse” option.

Learn More

This thread was archived. Please ask a new question if you need help.

PNG Inline Images from Outlook displaying as [CID:filename...] in Thunderbird

  • 1 (رد واحد)
  • 1 has this problem
  • 1 view
  • آخر ردّ كتبه Matt

jatkindb
jatkindb
more options

Thunderbird version 102.6.1 Windows 10

When I receive an email with an inline PNG attachment from an Outlook user, the body of the email only displays a link like [cid:image001.png@01D8DF11.866873A0] and instead the image is included as an attachment.

I've seen old articles of this problem but nothing recent. The fixes I've seen haven't helped. Message body as > Original HTML Display Attachments Inline is checked toggling both did not help.

Thunderbird version 102.6.1 Windows 10 When I receive an email with an inline PNG attachment from an Outlook user, the body of the email only displays a link like [cid:image001.png@01D8DF11.866873A0] and instead the image is included as an attachment. I've seen old articles of this problem but nothing recent. The fixes I've seen haven't helped. Message body as > Original HTML Display Attachments Inline is checked toggling both did not help.

All Replies (1)

Matt
Matt
  • Moderator
  • Top 10 Contributor
more options

This bug was fixed in V101 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1734161 which apparently lead top https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1791854

Perhaps there is a regression from the second fix. I suggest you actually file a bug for this.