I know that this is a old msg. But i've just started using file streams 
and I find this interesting.
Im curious though. What was the error that you did get with IE6?

If you read the RFC 
(http://www.nacs.uci.edu/indiv/ehood/MIME/rfc2183.txt) for 
content-disposition:

2.1  The Inline Disposition Type

   A bodypart should be marked `inline' if it is intended to be
   displayed automatically upon display of the message.  Inline
   bodyparts should be presented in the order in which they occur,
   subject to the normal semantics of multipart messages.

2.2  The Attachment Disposition Type

   Bodyparts can be designated `attachment' to indicate that they are
   separate from the main body of the mail message, and that their
   display should not be automatic, but contingent upon some further
   action of the user.  The MUA might instead present the user of a
   bitmap terminal with an iconic representation of the attachments, or,
   on character terminals, with a list of attachments from which the
   user could select for viewing or storage

Sure, the RFC is written for emails, but I take that as if you are 
supposed to use "content-disposition: attachement" for files that are 
going to be downloaded and "content-disposition: inline" for files that 
are supposed to be opened. Or am I wrong?

Everything works fine for me (using IE6). Im using "inline" since im 
converting soundfiles on-the-fly from our CTI applications to be able to 
let users listen to them on the web. (<a 
href=3D'playvox.php?voxfile=3D332'>play file</a>)

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Fr=E5n: Nikolai Devereaux [mailto:yomama@u...]
Skickat: den 11 oktober 2002 20:01
Till: professional php
=C4mne: [pro_php] RE: Auto download



> Does this work for both Netscape and IE?

Works for me...

> I struggled with this once in Perl and found that IE (surprise,
> surprise) did not conform to specs and so I was forced to detect the
> browser and send different headers to different browsers.

Only IE6, iirc, didn't handle the Content-Disposition or the 
Content-Type
headers correctly.  Microsoft provided a patch last year because of some
security vulnerability related to this.


take care,

nik