Re: Replacement Email Client
On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 20:31:16 +0000
"Jeremy Nicoll" <jn.ml.dbn.25@letterboxes.org> wrote:
> I think there's a difference between a mail which has an html copy of
> plain text, where images etc that might be required for the html page
> can be fetched from servers - in that case a browser will be able to
> display the page well ... and emails which contain html and a set of
> associated image attachments.
>
> In the latter case, just dumping the html into a temporary file and
> pointing a browser at it won't also give the browser access to the
> associated images, unless (I suppose) a folder full of images are
> passed to the browser as well as the html page, AND the image
> references inside the html somehow are modified from whatever
> would have worked inside an email client, so that they browser
> can pick up the images in the folder.
Interesting. I don't recall seeing any of the latter, but then I
usually use claws-mail's built in HTML viewer, which strips images from
HTML emails before displaying them.
(Many email blasts use images from a server, with an especially encoded
URL, so that the sender knows exactly when the recipient opened the
email. That is one one of several reasons I don't load images.)
>
> By "logging-in", I guess the OP is referring to using a webmail system
> where the webmail server presents an integrated view of the html page
> and the unpacked embedded attached images.
Ah. He abandons claws-mail entirely, and views the email on gmail (the
account from which he posts is a gmail account) in his browser. Yes,
that would be a PITA. I'd like to hear that from him before I
conjecture further.
--
Does anybody read signatures any more?
https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/
Reply to: