On 2005-09-06T03:47:55+0200, David Jardine wrote: > (a) the difference in the way mutt deals with html emails > (sometimes outputting them as normal text, sometimes presenting > them as attachments),
I do not understand the question. By default mutt list html files as attachments, and you need to press v and select the attachment in question and press enter to launch an external browser. There appears to be a race condition, at this least this usually does not work for me. Instead I save the attachments and point firefox to the file. You can configure mutt to display html files inline with help of w3m by setting the following in .muttrc: auto_view text/html > (b) the difference in the way different MUAs (I hope that's the > right term) present html emails such as the one someone was > complaining about above (inline or attachment), and > > (c) the difference in the way different MUAs (?) send these html > emails. It seems as if there's some way of indicating that the > text should be inlined but that some senders don't use it and > that some receivers don't understand it. Okay, that's my non- > techie way of seeing it. You are referring to the content-type header of MIME messages, I think, in particular multipart/alternative vs. perhaps text/html. Check out RFC 2045 for more deatils. /Allan
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
