On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 13:01:46 -0500, Aaron Schrab wrote:
> At 11:12 -0500 30 May 2000, Ronny Haryanto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > an RFC (about multipart or MIME, I can't remember exactly) suggests
> > that the last text/plain part be shown if all of the parts are of the
> > same type. Pleas
Thanks to all who answered my question. Gee, mutt is even better than I
originally thought!
Cheers...
--
Alex Lane * Webster, Texas, USA * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * www.galexi.com/alex/
DH/DSS PGP keyID: 0xD94803CD -*- RSA PGP keyID: 0xCABD6FF9
It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one
At 11:12 -0500 30 May 2000, Ronny Haryanto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> an RFC (about multipart or MIME, I can't remember exactly) suggests
> that the last text/plain part be shown if all of the parts are of the
> same type. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Actually, mailers are supposed to prefer
On 30-May-2000, Lars Hecking wrote:
> > Which get's even more interesting when you have a mailing list
> > processor which attaches it's own signature as text/plain in the
> > same multipart/alternative. You see only the signature. :-(
IIRC, ezmlm does this. The reason you only see the signature
Even majordomo can be configured to allow attachments - and
multipart/alternative, however unacceptable, is an attachment and does not
violate the RFCs (strictly speaking).
Not violating RFCs does not stop html mail from being a pain in the ass ;)
-s
Lars Hecking proclaimed on mutt-users that:
> Which get's even more interesting when you have a mailing list
> processor which attaches it's own signature as text/plain in the
> same multipart/alternative. You see only the signature. :-(
Such software is obviously broken. But I'd probably consider a mailing
list processor broken that le
On 2000-05-30 10:54:47 +0200, Byrial Jensen wrote:
> I guess that it was a multipart/alternative post where each of the
> body parts (in this case of types text/plain and text/html) is an
> alternative version of the same information.
>
> Mutt will only show you one of the parts of a multipart/al
On Mon, May 29, 2000 at 19:55:23 -0500, Alex Lane wrote:
> Recently, a gentleman made a post that was so flamed. In reviewing the
> post, I find no html code in the thing, no message from mutt that I
> oughta press 'v' to view an html-encoded message, nothing.
>
> One clue that makes no sense to
On Mon, May 29, 2000 at 07:55:23PM -0500, Alex Lane wrote:
> One clue that makes no sense to me is that the offending post on the list
> was a multipart post, one part text; the other, html. An examination of
> the entire (?) message shows no multiple parts.
>
> My read of the manual (1.2) fails
The general opinion of HTML posts on one of the lists I subscribe to is
pretty low, to the extent that folks who post using HTML get flamed
pretty well.
Recently, a gentleman made a post that was so flamed. In reviewing the
post, I find no html code in the thing, no message from mutt that I
ought
10 matches
Mail list logo
