Jim Graham wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 02:32:59PM +1000, m...@raf.org wrote:
> > m...@raf.org wrote:
> > 
> > > Jim Graham wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I'm not sure of the exact year, but somewhere around 1996--1997, I was
> > > > using an e-mail markup language that was similar in some respects to
> > > > html, but it wasn't html.  It was limited to simple text markup such
> > > > as bold, simple colors, *maybe* italic and underline (don't remember),
> > > > and if I remeember correctly, not much else.
> > > > 
> > > > Does anyone remember what that is (or was) called, and/or what the
> > > > RFC for it is?  I do remember that Mutt supported it (and it was one
> > > > of the very few that did).
> 
> > > it was probably text/richtext (not application/x-rtf).
> > 
> > oops. i mean text/enriched.
> > 
> > > the rfc is http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1523.txt
> 
> I thought I remembered it having an FLA like HTML, only different.  I
> could be wrong, though...it's been a long time.  And I did stumble across
> text/enriched, and either my little test was broken, or Mutt no longer
> supports it.  Is it a dead RFC?
> 
> Thanks,
>    --jim

according to wikipedia (no citation):

 As of 2012, enriched text remained almost unknown in e-mail traffic,
 while HTML e-mail is widely used.

the latest rfc is rfc1896 from 1996 in the legacy stream.
it sounds deadish.

but my sister was using it with eudora3 until a few months ago
(believe it or not).

the last text/enriched email i have in my inbox was from 22 Apr 2009
(i started translated them automatically upon arrival to plain text
so i probably received some since then) and mutt definitely still
knows what it is and renders it sensibly.

at least my Mutt 1.5.21 (2010-09-15) on my ubuntu-11.04 system at home
can render it but my Mutt 1.5.20 (2009-06-14) on a debian-6.0 system
doesn't render it at all. that's odd. they have the same compile options
but different patches.

according to http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/manual-5.html, mutt
supports text/enriched internally so it should always work.

cheers,
raf

Reply via email to