On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 16:19:44 +0200, Richard wrote: > If you ever want to be taken seriously, stop spreading such bogus nonsense. > Even base64 encoding wouldn't blow up the size that much. No idea what bs > mail you are talking about, but for me, both the plain text and html > version are said to be 4k in size (by du). Even though that's not that > exact, simple logic is enough to be able to tell your claim is pretty much > impossible. > > Best > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 3:43 PM Michel Verdier <mv...@free.fr> wrote: > > > As the html part is useless and multiply > > the mail size by almost 10.
Richard, your message to which I'm replying shows the following sizes: I 1 <no description> [multipa/alternativ, 7bit, 2.0K] I 2 ├─><no description> [text/plain, quoted, utf-8, 0.5K] I 3 └─><no description> [text/html, quoted, utf-8, 1.2K] The HTML part is more than double the size of the plain text part, and when you include all of the MIME metadata needed to set up the multipart message, the overall size of the body is about 4x what it would have been if you'd only sent plain text (0.5k -> 2.0k). Granted, this is not the 10x increase that Michel predicted, but it's easy to see how a *different* HTML message, with a lot more markup, could certainly reach that threshold. Also, please stop top-posting your replies.
