On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 06:44:21AM +0200, David Jardine wrote: > On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 05:06:22PM -0700, James Vahn wrote: > > David Jardine wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 11:09:31PM +0200, Rakotomandimby Mihamina wrote: > > >> On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 16:36 -0400, David R. Litwin wrote: > > >> > Any way, have you any advice > > >> > > >> not using HTML... > > > > > > Using mutt, I see no html. Is this a bug or a feature of mutt? > > > (I do often get html attachments - and also quite a lot of html > > > source code from spammers.) > > > > I use tin here (localhost fed from gmane) and it seems his message was an > > encoded blob, which I could only see by hitting ctrl-h to view the raw > > message and its headers: > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 > > Content-Disposition: inline > > > > > > QmVmb3JlIEkgZ28gYW55IGZ1cnRoZXIsIHllcywgSSBuZWVkIGJvb3RzcGxhc2g6IE15IGNvbXB1 > > > > dGVyIGlzIGR1YWwtYm9vdCAKYW5kIHRoZSBvdGhlciB1c2VyIGluc2lzdHMgb24gQTogVXNpbmcg > > > > IEkgc2hhbGwgYmUgZ2V0dGluZyBhIGxhcC10b3Agc29vbi4gKEJ5IHRoZSBieWUsIHdoeSAKZG9l > > > > Mutt probably saw "Content-Disposition: inline" and acted appropriately. > > And "text/plain". So where did the html idea come from?
From the text/html part of the multipart message. The poster who saw the html part is using Evolution, which I've never used, but which probably has a configuration setting to prefer the text version of a multipart message. Drifting further off-topic, I notice that Mozilla Thunderbird defaults to sending html email. This seems a very odd choice to me, especially for the Linux version. In the Windows version, I can understand that the intention is to give users weaned from OE what they're used to, but it certainly isn't what users of other Linux mail clients are used to. -- PJR :-)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
