=- Jim Allen wrote on Wed 28.Feb'07 at 20:02:57 -0600 -=
> A useful feature would be providing the equivalent of the
> mime_forward configuration variable but which applies to replies
> (i.e.mime_reply which allows reply with attachments). This
> allows one to preserve the original note and its formatting.
Why would you want to send back the original attachment(s) unchanged?
Is this a more "sophisticated" variant of TOFU quoting?
=- Jim Allen wrote on Thu 1.Mar'07 at 20:05:08 -0600 -=
> On Mar 1, 2007, at 4:20 AM, Lars Hecking wrote:
> > Can you show me one single case where using multipart/alternative is
> > justified and actually makes any sense?
>
> {...}, the fact is that HTML e-mail is ubiqutuous (Outlook,
> Thunderbird, Lotus Notes, Gnome Evolution, Mac OSX Mail, etc).
Still no need to join them.
> In fact I have many colleagues and customers who insist on not
> using plain text e- mail at all.
> {...}
> Since I have to interact with them and prefer a text-based
> e-mail client, I've extended mutt with configurable variables to
> provide better multipart/alternative e-mail handling.
Let them have their way, why do _you_ (or mutt) have to (be able
to) send HTML?
--
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL of it: you get what you give.
