Robert Elz <[email protected]> wrote:
> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 19:49:25 -0400
> From: Valdis Kletnieks <[email protected]>
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> | Which of course in any standard-compliant MUA will almost certainly do
> | one of the first two and never bother looking at the third one.
> Without knowing what the parts contain, I can't say whether the format is
> appropriate or not, but your interpretation of what should happen is
> incorrect - a standards compliant MUA that understands text/calendar
should
> process that part (the last understood alternative is the one that is
> supposed to be preferred) - if text/calendar is not understood, then
making
> it be a multipart/related isn't going to solve anything (putting
text/html
> before text/plain is certainly an unusual ordering however.)
Not sure where this thread started; maybe with trying to deal with Outlook
and webex's abomination of text/calendar... (often sending it as
application/octet-stream, even...)... but my sad experience is often that
because the MUA *thinks* it understands text/calendar, it tries to render it,
only it's a broken text/calendar, so the end user gets crap all.
If the MUA didn't understand text/calendar, then it might have rendered
the text/html (except that Outlook doesn't bother, and thinks you can put
HTML into the text/calendar's description field, which I'm sure is wrong,
because there is no mime type on that part).
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
