Paul F. wrote:
david wrote:
> Paul F. wrote:
>
> > as an aside, i actually think "the sender's ranking" is a
> > highly overrated, and possibly even obsolete concept these
> > days, RFCs notwithstanding.
>
> I'm not sure about that. My phone seems to handle it
> (multipart/alternative) nicely.
and nmh does (or could) too, right now, if we were all willing to
hand html mail to our browsers for display. but most of would
prefer to see text/plain over text/html,
mhn.defaults, by default, prefers text/html over text/plain.
You know that you can override that, right?
or perhaps even choose which based on sender.
That's messier with mhn.defaults and/or the profile, but still
doable.
i'd like to see that made easier than it is
now, because while its nice to know what the "sender" would prefer
me to look at, that preference can be difficult for me to
accomodate.
>
> On the other hand, I have been getting emails with text/html and
> text/plain in a multipart/related. But those two text parts
> appear to be just different representations of the same content,
> so they really should be in a multipart/alternative. I had been
> thinking that these are mistakes. But now I wonder if that's the
> sender's way of punting the choice to the recipient.
does it matter? again, this suggests that we need better mechanisms
for choosing among alternative mime parts in ways that are somewhat
independent of the sender's supposed preference.
In this case, the sender isn't indicating a preference. So mhshow
shows all the alternatives. I find that annoying, but at least
it's easy to avoid.
David
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers