Confusion in regard to attachments

[Sydney Grew]

I am attempting to oblige some one who is experiencing at least three problems with something I posted, and wants me to "post it here instead." So I have prepared a zip file of 210 KB, and I would like to attach it to an ordinary posted message.

First I click on "reply."

Then I click on "Go Advanced".

Then I click on "Manage Attachments" where it says "Valid file extensions: bmp doc gif jpe jpeg jpg pdf png psd txt zip". A blueish window pops up and says "Click Add Files to upload new files."

Then I click on "Add Files" and "Browse", navigate to the zip file on my computer, and press "Upload".

But lo! I am brusquely informed that "The following errors [sic] occurred: get_spec.zip: Invalid File." I am not told why or how or in what way it is "invalid," so it is impossible for me to progress any further forward.

If I click on the question mark in the "File Upload Manager" I see a little box headed "Allowed Filetypes" [sic] and the box is empty. This is in direct contradiction to the list of "Valid file extensions" seen earlier.

I am therefore at a loss as to how to satisfy the member's not unreasonable request. Has any one ever successfully used a zip attachment?

[Mr Pee]

Has any one ever successfully used a zip attachment?

I have just used one to secure my trousers, if that's any help....

[MrGongGong]

(please delete if this is too OT)
BUT

A thread that starts with the word "CONFUSION" then the first two posters cheered me up no end

[french frank]

I can't see any setting which would prevent it but have never done it (i.e. the settings suggest you can). Might mean fiddling a bit. You get the 'invalid file' message is you don't check a particular box when displaying images.

[Bryn]

If the intended recipient's email address is known, would it not be simpler to avail oneself of the free services of WeTransfer.com?

[Frances_iom]

since it was I who asked - if the zipped Perl is 210k then I suspect I don't want the program as a 1MB or so Perl code is generally unmodifiable even to author after a couple of weeks (and few M/Bs allow zip attachments as they can readily convey malware eg by starting an infinite regress in expanding a dummy file) - I guess Mr Grew wants to keep anonymity hence the non use of standard channels for conveyance of opensource software.

[Sydney Grew]

. . . if the zipped Perl is 210k . . .

No, the Perl is not 210 KB, it is just 6 KB. Much more reasonable! The zip also contains instructions.txt (2 KB) and two jpg files which are pictures of the script in action (123 KB and 108 KB).

If size turns out to be the problem, the two jpg files can of course be omitted - they are readily visible at the original link. The 6 KB Perl script consists of around two hundred lines, many of which are comments.

I guess Mr Grew wants to keep anonymity hence the non use of standard channels for conveyance of opensource software.

Um . . . you what?

My guess is that in the end people may have to gird up their loins, venture forth and obtain the materials at the link originally supplied. It is interesting though to learn that the present forum does not do the Googol trace business.

[french frank]

Um . . . you what?

Rather ... demotic, Mr G, aren't we? Is that allowed?

(The present forum does have Google Analytics, btw, which the government and ICO rate as 'minimally intrusive'. The risk might be from the website owner, rather than Google itself. We don't market in any way or supply the data to anyone else; lt is not user-related, either to forum members or visitors.

"...analytics are essential to our “continual improvement” approach to developing digital public services, which is critical to delivering the government’s digital by default agenda. The consensus was, especially in the case of first-party analytics cookies [e.g. GA], these types of cookies are “minimally intrusive” (in line with the ICO guidance) and that the bulk of our efforts to rationalise our use of cookies should be focused on cookies classified as “moderately intrusive”.” [Government guidance]

[Dave2002]

(please delete if this is too OT)
BUT

A thread that starts with the word "CONFUSION" then the first two posters cheered me up no end

I thought we might be about to have a car insurance thread ...

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

alas i suffered from this condition as a child [pace Bowlby]

[MrGongGong]

I thought we might be about to have a car insurance thread ...

Or ELO

[teamsaint]

Or ELO

or New Order.

ELO are great to sing along to, in the car..and i know for a fact that even folks like Beef oven have some on their Ipod.

[french frank]

For the benefit of Mr Grew, perhaps should say that we seem to have exhausted all information we have on his questions in the OP.

[Frances_iom]

...
(The present forum does have Google Analytics, btw, which the government and ICO rate as 'minimally intrusive'. The risk might be from the website owner, rather than Google itself.

personally I just don't believe that - it is easy to convert the IP address + individual GA user ID into a tracking device with very little difficulty esp now GA pushes every access via https so has a timed sequence of accesses - I'd trust the good intentions of this website owner however (tho I'm always wary of certain MB programs as easy to slip additional code into the template).
However any site that goes out of its way to block adblockers is IMO up to no good as much malware has been pushed by those 'innocent' banner adverts (just as Javascript + invisible iframes allow another attack vector - tho it also allows certain database accesses etc) - btw I blook GA with the hosts file (or equivalent tho of course in latest MS + in Android such personal blocking is no longer allowed)

I'll give the code a pass - it wasn't the Spectator that interested me but possible modification to ease access to large paged pdf files eg catalogues

[Sydney Grew]

I can't see any setting which would prevent it but have never done it (i.e. the settings suggest you can). Might mean fiddling a bit. You get the 'invalid file' message if you don't check a particular box when displaying images.

Just to eliminate one possibility - excessive size - I attempted just now to attach a small zip file - 6 KB - but still received that enigmatic response "invalid file".

And to eliminate another possibility, in my "General Settings" I switched "Enhanced Attachment Uploading" from On to Off, but that didn't help.

This particular case is not vital and not worth too much bother, but it would of course be nice eventually to know the reason.