On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 23:53:40 +1300 martin f krafft <madd...@madduck.net> wrote:
> Regarding the following, written by “Dave Woodfall” on 2019-10-30 at > 10:05 Uhr +0000: > > > > I don’t think embracing wrong email practices is the way forward. > > I don’t think this is about right and wrong, and not only because > there is no objectivity. multipart/alternative is an accepted > standard, and so is HTML. You might not like how things have > developed, and neither do I, but that doesn’t make it wrong. HTML is for web pages. It is wrong for email, yes. Lots of Microsoft crap seems like an "accepted standard" but that's really just bullying, because they come preinstalled on 99% of Intel/AMD hardware. Just because everybody says the world is flat does not mean it's true. > The fact that the vast majority have adopted HTML for emails means > you cannot really ignore it anymore. I read those emails with a GUI client that I don't like very much and like less and less with each new release. I like mutt for mailing lists and corresponding with technical people. > Mutt already handles receiving/reading alternative parts quite well. > Being able to produce those parts will mean it’ll suck less for those > who need or want this functionality. Simplicity and constantly adding new features that are inessential are at odds with each other. I think it's pretty clear the people who use mutt prefer simplicity or they would have chosen something else. There are enough other email clients for people in other camps. Sometimes you have to have more than one tool for different jobs, even though they're superficially similar. /jl
