Somewhere on Shadow Earth, at Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 07:27:27PM -0700, Phil Pennock wrote: > On 2008-07-03 at 16:52 -0700, Timothy Knox wrote: > > which is followed by an HTML version of of the actual mail, THAT is NOT > > ACTUALLY > > multipart/alternative. multipart/alternative is only for messages where each > > part is simply an alternative format for the same basic content! The type > > you > > want is multipart/mixed. If you could get this right, my mail client, which > > has > > been told to ignore HTML mail in multipart/alternative messages (since HTML > > mail > > is a whole 'nother hate), would correctly use lynx to display your HTML > > message > > correctly to me. > > It's not what they want, because the people using HTML-capable > mail-clients would also see the text. So you're just as guilty of not > thinking of people with different mail-clients as is the author of the > software which you're complaining about.
Actually, no. Well-written mail clients can choose either the plain text or the HTML version, based on user preferences. For example, PowerMail, which my wife uses, has an option to select between plain text rendering of incoming messages and HTML. My client allows me to pick. I have simply picked plain text. People using *good* HTML-capable clients will see HTML if that is their wish. :-) -- Timothy Knox <mailto:t...@thelbane.com> The one thing I've learned about freedom of expression is that you really ought to keep that sort of thing to yourself. -- Scott Adams, _I'm Not Anti-Business, I'm Anti-Idiot_
