Re: Mutt and html
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 03:47:55AM +0200, David Jardine wrote:
> 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),
Some MUAs can be configured to send the same message as both a plain
text message and an HTML message, nothing very magical and only slightly
more wastful than HTML alone.
>
> (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?
(b) and (c) are configuration setting in some MUAs, also. I like mutt
because it doesn't have them. For me, if the sender can't figure out
how to communicate in text words what he has to say is almost certainly
not worth reading.
--
Paul E Condon
pecondon@mesanetworks.net
Reply to: