On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 18:34, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > Actually, I just thought of a way that they *might* be handling it if > indeed they do show the contents that mutt originally sent. > > if their parser was written where the logic is such that the last > Content-Type header encountered is the one they use, then it's possible > that they clobber the first Content-Type header and therefor use the > inner Content-Type header as if it were the toplevel MIME part (which is > wrong, btw). > > Because of this, they end up showing what mutt sent but truncate any > additional parts that the mailing list software has attached. > > Anyways, that's just a theory. > > IMHO, Evolution's handling is more correct in this case. > Perhaps "correct" if that means strict adherence to committee standards. But not very useful if your goal is to read your mail. IMHO solutions that attempt to more accurately render what the sender intended are more "useful".
-- Arthur S. Alexion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Arthur S. Alexion LLC _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
