Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These days, with the variety of mail clients and personal tastes,
> it's hard to please everyone. However, what I'm attempting to do is
> configure Mozilla mail to send an HTML formatted sig with my HTML
> format messages. I send messages in both HTML and text (that might
> be violating some sort of netiquette in and of itself),
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. 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), so if you want to use
HTML in some messages, might as well use HTML only and be done with
it.
> and I don't like the idea/appearance of a non-hyperlinked sig
> (containing e-mail address and web page). This probably opens up a
> can of worms as to what's right, what's polite, etc, and at this
1> point, I'm all ears.
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.
> Now, as for newsgroup posts, that's a different thing, and I
> understand that I probably should send in text format. How much of
> an issue is that these days?
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).
