On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 05:23:15PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 01:04:58AM +0200, 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 consider it a feature. You can, with maybe some configuratio, get
> mutt to invoke your favorite html browser and have it display the
> html when you press the v-key.
Heaven forbid. The occasional post to this list does appear as an
html attachment and I usually just delete it without reading it
because of the awkwardness of reading it and more particularly of
deleting it.
What I'm curious about is
(a) the difference in the way mutt deals with html emails
(sometimes outputting them as normal text, sometimes presenting
them as attachments),
(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.
Any ideas?
--
David Jardine
"Running Debian GNU/Linux and
loving every minute of it." -L. von Sacher-M.(1835-1895)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
