I got lynx to read HTML attachments but
looks like MS Outlook something is sending
HTML emails that are NOT attachments and
my autofilter is not correcting it so I just
see HTML source code. I believe I was not
even able to save and view this file the hard
way. Anybody having similar problems?
Dr. Christian Seberino proclaimed on mutt-users that:
> I got lynx to read HTML attachments but
> looks like MS Outlook something is sending
> HTML emails that are NOT attachments and
> my autofilter is not correcting it so I just
> see HTML source code. I believe I was not
> even able to save
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 09:10:43PM -0700, Dr. Christian Seberino wrote:
> I got lynx to read HTML attachments but
> looks like MS Outlook something is sending
> HTML emails that are NOT attachments and
> my autofilter is not correcting it so I just
> see HTML source code. I believe I was not
> ev
At Tue, May 08 2001 [21:10 -0700], Dr. Christian Seberino aroused my curiosity with:
> I got lynx to read HTML attachments but
> looks like MS Outlook something is sending
> HTML emails that are NOT attachments and
> my autofilter is not correcting it so I just
> see HTML source code. I believe I
I had this symptom, I needed the file to have a .html suffix:
text/html; lynx -localhost -dump %s ; copiousoutput ; nametemplate=%s.html
Your problem sounds slightly different, but maybe give it a whirl.
Sam
Quoting "Dr. Christian Seberino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, who wrote:
> Stephan,
>
> Here
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 02:59:25PM -0700, Dr. Christian Seberino wrote:
> You never had any strange variation of html and/or
> xml that w3m could not handle? I'm using lynx.
> Is w3m better than lynx at this?
I have never received a message that w3m couldn't handle. I really like
w3m because i
Chris,
After getting the view of the attachments with "v", select the
file labelled "text/html" and enter. If you mailcap file is
right, you'll see the Lynx version of html in the window.
jc
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 02:58:34PM -0700, Dr. Christian Seberino wrote:
> Suresh,
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 04:45:31PM -0700, Gary Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 02:59:25PM -0700, Dr. Christian Seberino wrote:
>
> > You never had any strange variation of html and/or
> > xml that w3m could not handle? I'm using lynx.
> > Is w3m better than lynx at this?
>
> I have nev
If a MIME entity (either a sub-part of a multipart message or in this
case the entire body of the message) is not of a type that Mutt can
handle internally, but it's been told to autoview it then Mutt saves
the entity to a temporary file, runs the appropriate command on this
file and shows you the
Franke, Marcus proclaimed on mutt-users that:
> Wednesday, May 09, 2001, 7:05:41 AM, you wrote:
> SR> Press v and pipe it to lynx -dump
> Better use w3m, it can handle tables much better
> than lynx does, and in another list Im in there were
> security problems mentioned with lynx..
> syntax is
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 11:44:17AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> w3m is not bad - but lynx has been patched - and the 2.8.4 devel versions do
> handle tables (after a fashion). Or there's also "links".
yes (after a fashion: lynx doesn't use line-drawing characters, and some
of the lay
11 matches
Mail list logo
