On 2008-07-03 at 20:32 -0700, Timothy Knox wrote: > Somewhere on Shadow Earth, at Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 07:27:27PM -0700, Phil > Pennock wrote: > > 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. :-)
For that to happen, the sender must (surely) be using "multipart/alternative". "multipart/mixed" is deliberately for where each part matters and all need to be shown. So in your proposed solution, people using HTML-capable mail-clients would see the text-part as well as the HTML part. I'm not defending the stupid messages, or use of HTML mail except by mutual consent, merely (!) pointing out that you're making the same mistake as the authors of the crudware which you're (rightly) complaining about. (Myself, I normally just mark such mails as spam.) -Phil
