Re: PATCH: don't include text/html in reply, ...

[Toralf Lund <toralf kscanners com>]

On 2001.08.22 17:59 M . Thielker wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2001.08.22 19:52 Albrecht Dreß wrote:
> > I *think* some RFC (I forgot which one) states that a mail with a html
> > body
> > should *always* have a copy in text/plain format (is this correct?). So
> > the
> > method should be safe...
> > 
> 
> I have observed that email from M$-Oulook Express may sometimes
> _not_include
> a copy in plain text.
Same goes for Netscape; the user can choose to send the message as plan
text, html or both (BTW, Netscape lets you send the message as plain text
even if you edit it as "HTML" - I feature I like a lot and use all the
time, or _used_ all the time, anyway, before I switched to Balsa...)
> 
> > Opinions?
I think you can rely on attachment type being set to
"multipart/alternative" when text/plain and text/html versions exist, so
you should apply your logic when it is (and use _my_ text-to-html converter
on html parts when not ;-) - see Bug 58915 in Bugzilla)
> In my opinion, HTML mails do not deserve notice and _should_ not be
> forwarded anyway.
Hmmm. Some people have this compulsion of including all sorts of fancy
formatting in even the simplest notices. If these people can't use HTML
in mails, they'll probably send MS Word docs instead, which is *a*lot*
worse
(actually, they often do that anyway, but you get my point, right?)
> 
> Melanie
> 
> _______________________________________________
> balsa-list mailing list
> balsa-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/balsa-list
>