On 3 Jan 2020, at 17:45, Philip Prindeville wrote:
[...]
One other question that occurs to me: why would we even need <meta
http-equiv=“Content-Type” …> if we already have a Content-Type:
header?
There should be no need.
With that said, it could be *helpful* if a MUA were to save out the
text/html part as a standalone file without including any definitive
indication of the file being HTML.
Isn’t that the sign of a broken MUA doing the composition?
Not broken (except for the fact of generating HTML for email at all, a
disease analogous to HSV-1.) It is valid HTML and can be useful in rare
circumstances.
Is that on its own Spamsign (with all respect to Frank Herbert)?
Do you consider all mail from Facebook to be spam?
--
Bill Cole
b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
Not For Hire (currently)
