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.

Search Support

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

Wannan tattunawa ta zama daɗaɗɗiya. Yi sabuwar tambaya idan ka na bukatar taimako.

Why would received message not show an attachment when view of message body is plain text, but does show when view of body is HTML?

  • 5 amsoshi
  • 2 sa na da wannan matsala
  • 3 views
  • Amsa ta ƙarshe daga Matt

more options

I have encountered the situation where Thunderbird (v52) did not show an attachment which turned out to be present. I default to 'View -> Message Body As -> Plain Text' and normally have no problem.

In this case the Inbox list does not indicate an attachment, nor does the message itself. But if I change the message body view to HTML from Plain Text then both message and Inbox show the attachment exists.

Should not Thunderbird show that an attachment is present no matter what the setting for viewing the message body?

I have encountered the situation where Thunderbird (v52) did not show an attachment which turned out to be present. I default to 'View -> Message Body As -> Plain Text' and normally have no problem. In this case the Inbox list does not indicate an attachment, nor does the message itself. But if I change the message body view to HTML from Plain Text then both message and Inbox show the attachment exists. Should not Thunderbird show that an attachment is present no matter what the setting for viewing the message body?

All Replies (5)

more options

That depends on how the message attachment is encoded in the message, and if the message truly has a plain text part or Thunderbird is trying to extract plain text from HTML source.

Do you have the source of a message I can have a look at?

more options

The attachment is a 3.1MB PDF document. The e-mail is multi-part with text/plain and text/html sections as well as the base64 encoded document. Certainly can forward to you if desired.

more options

BWNZ said

The attachment is a 3.1MB PDF document. The e-mail is multi-part with text/plain and text/html sections as well as the base64 encoded document. Certainly can forward to you if desired.

Please do, but save it as a file (ctrl+S) and attach or forward as an attachment. Do not simply forward I do not need the added complexity to the message body doing so will create.

email unicorn dot consulting at gmail dot com

more options

After further looking, I see that the e-mails which do not show the attachment until viewing the body as HTML, are all Content-type: multipart/alternative (and all through Apple systems). There appears to be no problem with Content-type: multipart/mixed.

more options

To borrow some words from http://www.freesoft.org/CIE/RFC/1521/18.htm

The multipart/alternative type is syntactically identical to multipart/mixed, but the semantics are different. In particular, each of the parts is an "alternative" version of the same information.

Based on that I guess Apple are producing non RFC compliant mail. The attachment is NOT an alternative view of the main mail body. (at least I hope it is not) So each of the parts is not an alternative.

Microsoft appear to be saying something similar here

The best description of the issue I found here https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3902455/mail-multipart-alternative-vs-multipart-mixed