Andy, Statements like this:
" It's the primary reason that people use both PowerMail and likely even Mailsmith." tends to give CTMDev the idea that the user base doesn't want it. But, at least a few folks do want it. And if it were available, I would think you could just not use it if you didn't want to, right? I primarily use PM because it is most like Claris Emailer, which I used for like 7 years. I like the search. I have bought 2 licences for PM over the years, and I would consider myself a power user. It is an unfortunate thing that I cannot create multipart emails. Your statement is like: "Everyone else is HAPPY with X, so be quiet" or whatever. I do love PM. But, the lack of outgoing multipart emails is NOT why I use it. Whew. Evie >Yes I am familiar with multipart email, but I don't think that PM can >send this. To the best of my knowledge this is the only solution >currently available. > >I think the reason that some email clients produce multipart html is >because they have a WYSIWYG editor and convert to HTML in the sending >process. Since they already have the text part as input, without the HTML >code it's relatively simple for that client to create a multipart >message. This is a guess. :-) > >Personally, as long as I can send the occasional HTML message I'm happy. >I immensely prefer plain text. It's the primary reason that people use >both PowerMail and likely even Mailsmith. > >-- >Andy Fragen > >On Fri, Mar 11, 2005, Evie Leder said: > >>Andy, >> >>Thank you for working this out! Now, this is an HTML email message, >>right? Not a multipart email. So, folks who only have a text-only reader, >>such as a palm or god forbid, claris emailer would not be able to read it >>natively in those applications, right? what is really needed is a way to >>send a multipart email. Are you familiar with multipart emails? See, I >>only know about this from what other people have told me, as I have NEVER >>had an email client that could send multipart. But, what they tell me is >>that it sends both text and html and the email client chooses which ever >>one it can read. Seems very civil to me. :) >> >>Thanks! >>Evie >> >>>Actually PM does send it correctly. It was my mistake for not ensuring >>>that I had no characters in the body of the outgoing message window prior >>>to sending. >>> >>>So, for the record. To send HTML mail here are the steps. >>> >>>1. Create HTML page. >>>2. Attach HTML page to outgoing message. >>>3. Make sure that there are no characters in the body of the outgoing >>message. >>>4. Send message. >>> >>>-- >>>Andy Fragen >>> >>>On Fri, Mar 11, 2005, Evie Leder said: >>> >>>>Andy, >>>> >>>>I think setting it as html would be deadly (meaning only spam is marked >>>>as straight html email), in order to work properly with text only email >>>>clients, it should be "multipart" no? >>>> >>>>>I'm wondering... >>>>> >>>>>PM sets the outgoing 'Content-Type' header to include 'text/plain;'. I'm >>>>>wondering if this could changed to be 'text/html;' for cases where HTML >>>>>is the body of message. I would then expect PM or the receiving email >>>>>client to "see" this message as HTML and PM should then give the option >>>>>to view as HTML or view in browser for the received message. >>>>> >>>>>I see no way to script this as both the source and the headers of the >>>>>message are [r/o]. >>>>> >>>>>Jerome any thoughts? >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>Andy Fragen >>>>>PBG4 1.33GHz/1.25GB RAM - OS X 10.3.8 - PowerMail v5.1.1a1 >>>>>PowerMail AppleScript Archives: http://www.ctmdev.com/tools/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > >
