Re: Mutt and HTML signatures
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 19:07:59 -0300, Daniel Bareiro wrote:
> On Sunday, 26 February 2012 15:22:20 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
>> I feel your pain :-)
>
> You sound like Master Yoda :-D
>
> I hope this is not the way to the dark side...
I still have to think about that >>:-)
>> > Is there any way to use HTML signatures with Mutt? More than 10 years
>> > that I use Mutt and I would not like having to change it just for
>> > this. I tried using a signature file with HTML code, but after
>> > reviewing the receipt of the message, HTML code is seen rather than
>> > rendering.
>
>> Sure! You can just create html encoding messages with "Ctrl+T" (default
>> combo) and change the "Content-Type:" header field to "text/html"
>> instead "text/plain". Then write down (or append) html code tags on
>> your message - or signature template- and that should be all.
>
> Interesting... the problem is to manually type the text with HTML tags
> is depressing. Is there any command line HTML editor can be used with
> Mutt?
Uf, maybe you're asking too much for a text based MUA :-)
I know you can instruct Mutt to use an external editor of your choice
(and thus you can call any html editor of your liking) but I'm not sure
if that solution will work fine or if there is a better way to get the
job done.
I would definitely ask this at Mutt's mailing list, although my guess is
that people in there won't be very much interested in such things like
seeing html code in their lovely e-mail client they can be able to tell
you the best ways to do this and maybe even some alternatives (like
having a set of templates or pre-formatted messages...).
> It also occurs to me that another alternative would be to write the
> message body in plain text as one normally does, then to have some
> process to attach the HTML version for that version in plain text, each
> with its signature in plain text and HTML as appropriate. Is that
> possible?
Yup, I think it can be feasible.
Anyway, what I do (and usually gives me the best results) is keep things
separate: at work I use Thunderbird that allows me send/receive all that
fancy messages with that big banners and company signatures, disclaimers
at the bottom, et al. For my own stuff, I use Mutt with my Gmail account
and a newsreader for mailing lists.
Just another possibility for your consideration.
> A few annoyances that must be taken to add two silly pictures when there
> are more important things as using the time to more productive things as
> working.
Agree.
Moreover, my guess is that if you only need to put some basic html code
in the signature, you can set two Mutt profiles: one for html and another
for text based messages with a predefined "Content-Type:" header on each
them so you don' have to start making changes on the fly. Also, for the
html profile you can define a signature with the required code and write
the body of the message with no formatting at all. While this is not
compliant to html coding standards, I think that most of the MUA will
render the message just fine, so maybe something worth to try.
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
Reply to: