On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 07:32:28AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 08:41:02AM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > The original mail was a passable MIME multipart/alternative > > with a plain text part. I /think/ that is OK, what do others > > think? > > See below. > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 08:25:05AM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 04:27:01PM -0600, William Torrez Corea wrote: > > > *Book.cpp* > > > > > > #include <set>#include <map>#include <string>#include <map>#include > > > <fstream>#include <algorithm>using namespace std; > > > > The line above looks very strange [...] > What's broken, I'm almost certain, is that this mega-line was > generated by a malformed HTML to text conversion. Yes, confirmed upthread, thanks. > In the general case, sure, it's not *terrible* if someone sends > multi-part text + HTML messages to the mailing list. But this breaks > down in some cases, and causes the text part of the message to be > mangled. Sometimes the readers will be able to discern this, and > figure out what the text was supposed to look like. Other times, we > cannot. > > So, the *best* thing to do would be to send plain text only. Definitely. This case is just evidence to that. > The absolute worst thing you can do is send HTML (with or without text) > and then act all arrogant and haughty [...] Agreed. Arrogant and haughty is almost always wrong :-D Cheers - t
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature