On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 20:31:16 +0000 "Jeremy Nicoll" <jn.ml.dbn...@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/