"Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T." wrote:
>
> Netscape Communicator has an option to turn this on or off. So Netscape
> can inflict this on readers at the other end. Its easily found in
> Preferences. I've left it off because of the experience I've had with
> it. I'm not sadistic like that.
Have you tried Netscape's quoted-printable implementation? Assuming that
Netscape's will suck based on the fact that Microsoft's does seems a
slightly unjustifiable leap. You could try sending a mail to yourself
using qp-encoding (nitpick: it's quoted-printable, not printed-quotable)
and see how it renders.
> Printed Quotable Mime Encoding as MicroSoft sends it is shown as an
> Attachemnt. In order to see as such you have to have show attchments
> inline turned on. If its not you see the typical attachment display you
> would when you send a picture or such item.
>
> As such it can not be changed as its an attachment, and is dependent
> upon how it was setup and sent from originating site.
The quoted-printable MIME encoding has been an internet standard (RFC)
for years. If there are still mail clients out there that handle it as
badly as you describe, perhaps such users should be considering a new
mail client. (It isn't, or shouldn't be, *actually* sent as an
attachment - if the mail client displays it as one, the bug is in the
client). After all, if someone complained that he couldn't read your
(standards-compliant and cross-browser) website with MSIE2.0 or NCSA
Mosaic, would you fix the page (possibly breaking it for other users in
the process) or tell them to upgrade their browser?
Note: I'm not suggesting that qp should be turned on by default, given
the climate as it is now. But I would suggest that, instead of (or as
well as) flaming people for sending qp, people should be flaming their
mail-client creators for not rendering a standard email correctly.
Stuart.
