On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 10:39:50AM -0500, Wizard wrote: > > Both of the proposed solutions so far would have you sending HTML-only > > email. Please do not do this; email which contains HTML without a > > corresponding plain text part is malformed. > > I understand the objections people may have to the sole inclusion of HTML > content in email, however providing misinformation doesn't resolve that. > Section 9.1 of RFC 2557, "MIME Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents" > specifically calls out the means by which one sends HTML documents without > included objects, and this mirrors the examples given by myself and Kevin > Pease (more so Kevin's, as mine fails to include mime-version and encoding). > It is an IETF standard, and in his original email Nilanjan specifically > mentions Outlook, which supports this standard. The example Kevin stated is > not 'malformed' and are valid solutions to Nilanjan's question. The example > that you give merely attaches the HTML document to the email, which can be > done with most any email client and I suspect is not quite what was being > asked.
The example I showed did *not* provide the HTML document as an attachment. I used a Content-Type of multipart/alternative, which indicates that the parts of the message are alternative forms of the message, and the mail client may choose to render whichever part it chooses. Outlook would show the HTML content and mutt would show the text content, for example. In his followup email Nilanjan specifically mentions mutt, which does not support directly rendering HTML content. Perhaps I erred in choosing the word "malformed", but I still assert that HTML email should not be sent without a corresponding plain text part. Ronald P.S. Disclaimer: mutt is my preferred email client. _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
