[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] semantics of mhshow -type and -part
From: |
David Levine |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] semantics of mhshow -type and -part |
Date: |
Mon, 02 Feb 2015 03:55:28 -0500 |
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.
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.
mhshow shows both, which is a bit annoying. Could we do better
by default? I've been relying on -type text/html, which is OK.
My phone shows the first inline and makes the others available
as attachments, even if they all have inline disposition. That
doesn't seem right.
David
[Nmh-workers] overriding multipart/alternative ordering, Paul Fox, 2015/02/04
Re: [Nmh-workers] semantics of mhshow -type and -part,
David Levine <=