When you use Insert|Image, do you tick the checkbox labelled "Attach this image to the message"?

If you don't, then it just sends the URL of the image file and if that points to your own computer or a private network, the image won't be accessible to the recipient. The checkbox causes the image content to be encoded into your message, making it an embedded image and independent of its origin.

No, tried it both ways, and it didn't work. That method also seems very stupid to me, especially when the image shows but does not mail. WYSIWYG should apply.

WYSIWYG does not apply to the internet. so it does not apply to mail.

People have been deluding themselves for years that Windows and Microsoft office provide WYSIWYG, that also is not true. So when the platforms are flawed there is very little point speaking of WYSIWG or expecting it to work.

So the method is not stupid, it is eminently sensible, however to view that an image is an image and "it should just send" is so wrong on so many levels it is not even funny.

So what format is this image? (What file type) How large is it? What anti virus program do you use?

Matt said

WYSIWYG does not apply to the internet. so it does not apply to mail. People have been deluding themselves for years that Windows and Microsoft office provide WYSIWYG, that also is not true. So when the platforms are flawed there is very little point speaking of WYSIWG or expecting it to work. So the method is not stupid, it is eminently sensible, however to view that an image is an image and "it should just send" is so wrong on so many levels it is not even funny. So what format is this image? (What file type) How large is it? What anti virus program do you use?

The fact that WYSIWYG does not work sometimes is no reason to regard it as not sensible to try and acheive. If what you see on the screen is completely different from what you send, how are you supposed to make quality judgements? Having a link to a persons computer from another computer is an invitation to hackers. Why would you do that? Also,it still doesn't work. I tried sending myself an email, and it should have referenced the file on my computer, but it didn't. The concept of sending half a document, and referencing the rest of the document from a computer somewhere on the Internet (which might be off), absolutely stupid from many points of view. If Thunderbird has some inherent problem with incorporating image files into a document, then it should not allow it as an option. One thing that most Windows software now allows is transferring files between formats, and this is a usefull option.

The fact that WYSIWYG does not work sometimes is no reason to regard it as not sensible to try and achieve.

Never is more the point. It never works on the internet, every browser and mail client renders fonts and forms and images differently. That is why most web sites use the browser string to choose which version of the site to offer up.

Change printers in a word processor and see WYSIWG change. Field questions from users who have suddenly manager to get their document on a 30 degree slant because their document formatting resembles a typewriter.

If what you see on the screen is completely different from what you send, how are you supposed to make quality judgements?

People writing computer programs and HTML have been doing it ever since there have been computers. Imagination and knowledge of the rendering capabilities to the expected client give some level of confidence. and KISS applies. The less complex the less likely it is to go spectacularly wrong

Having a link to a persons computer from another computer is an invitation to hackers.

That is what every address on the internet is, a link from one computer to another. Usually, your computer to someone elses. It is also why windows supports UNC names for files.

Why would you do that?

Also,it still doesn't work. I tried sending myself an email,

Did you get the email, many providers just don't deliver mail to yourself anymore.

and it should have referenced the file on my computer, but it didn't.

What did the HTML img tag actually contain?

The concept of sending half a document, and referencing the rest of the document from a computer somewhere on the Internet (which might be off), absolutely stupid from many points of view.

Depends, remote images in email are a perfect example of it. Many of today's emails would not be sent due to their size if the images were not remote, and how to marketers get to know who you are unless there are remote images so they can track you.

In a corporate environment there are places where you would be sacked for actually attaching documents to an email. A link to them on the server maintains the companies control of their intellectual property. Placing it in an email obviates all of that.

So get used to the fact that email is not WYSIWYG. It does not even use the same fonts you do, unless by happen-chance the recipient also has the same ones.

What does the message source say about the IMG tag for the image. <preformat> > </preformat> It will look something like this for a local link with moz-do-not-send="true" set if I specify not to include the image with the message.

If Thunderbird has some inherent problem with incorporating image files into a document, then it should not allow it as an option.

I am afraid is simply do not understand that statement at all. You are the only person I have ever encountered that could not include an image in their email.

One thing that most Windows software now allows is transferring files between formats,

How come I can not get mail out of outlook in a usable format? Are BMP, JPEG and PNG images interchangeable?

So what format is this image? (What file type) How large is it? What anti virus program do you use?