> 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. I'm sorry, you're correct. I was thinking multipart-mixed.
> 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. Actually, I can only find a reference to elm, but that is only as means of creating the email. Please don't misunderstand, I quite regularly use pine for email, however I understand the desire to send HTML email for things such as in-house reports and company newsletters. I only took offense to the statement that these examples were in some way 'broken'. If plain-text is not required as part of the solution (such as in-house items for a company standardized on some HTML-supporting MUA), then there is no reason to send it. In fact, it wastes resources. If however some clients do not have the ability to view HTML, then yes, you're solution would be preferable. Grant M. _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
