multipart/meowbot wrote:
>Yeah, the multipart/alternative approach is kind of icky for this
>application. If a client has enough MIME smarts to extract the text
>part from such a message, chances aren't bad that it has the means to
>display the HTML in a reasonable way too.
>
Good point, and now that you mention it, I can't think of many
reasonably current mail clients that _wouldn't_ handle it appropriately.
>Plus, multipart/alternative
>doesn't deliver on the hope that it would appease those who would have
>mail and news remain plaintext-only media forever (it just makes
>curmudgeons angrier about the increased size),
>
ROTFL! Yes, again, you're probably right. Now, not only will they hate
me for sending HTML formatted messages, but I'll fire them up for
sending messages of nearly twice the size as well!
>so if you want to use
>HTML in some messages, might as well use HTML only and be done with
>it.
>
That sounds reasonable, with the exception of newsgroup postings. I'll
most likely adjust my preferences to post plain text, but send e-mail in
HTML.
>Understandable. I'd wonder, though, if a traditional appended
>signature file even makes the most sense for HTML. The
>template/stationery approach would seem to be a better fit.
>
Possibly. Different templates would replace the different signature
files for personalization.
>It depends very much on the newsgroup. Lots of news servers actually
>filter out HTML-formatted news articles unless they are posted in
>specific hierarchies like here and microsoft.*, so for now you're best
>off sticking to plain text in newsgroups (binary groups are handled
>quite differently, of course).
>
Will do - many thanks for the reply!
Mark
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
web: http://www.marksmitka.com
