Re: OT: Email basices (was Re: Email Format Poll for the list)

[David Godfrey <..hidden..>]

Hi David,

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I am aware that Thunderbird handles flowed text 
in HTML fine.
The reference to flowed text was when sending and receiving Plain Text email.
Thunderbird forces a hard wrap at compose time, this defaults to 72 characters.
While a received Plain Text email will dynamically wrap (or so I have observed)
it becomes almost pointless, when a sent email is hard wrapped.

Additional responses inline.

David F. Skoll wrote:
> David Godfrey wrote:
>
> > Personally I am happy to send in Plain Text, although I consider the lack of
> > "flowed text" in most clients (including thunderbird) to be a major issue.
>
> Thunderbird supports flowed text very well.  Just make sure your
> Content-Type: text/plain header has a "format=flowed" parameter.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2646.txt
>
> > Thunderbird, and some other clients treat multipart sections as attachments
>
> Thunderbird gets it right if you have a Content-Disposition: inline
> header.  Outlook gets it wrong no matter what... but you're wasting
> your time if you're trying to please Outlook.

With regard to multipart sections appearing as attachments, are you saying that 
Thunderbird should not display them as attachments?
My experience, would suggest otherwise for some cases.
For example, Chris travers email today (05:17 gmt+8) titled
Re: [Ledger-smb-users] Working on a security best practices document
has a part 1.2 and a part 1.3, these are both plain text signatures in their own 
part of a multipart email, but they display as attachments, when really they 
should be inline.
BTW: these 2 signatures are actually the same ones that are shown at the bottom 
of all messages coming from the list.
This of course may be caused at the sending client, and in this case most likely 
is, as not all messages from the list are showing that way.

Sorry Chris, didn't mean to single you out here :)

Regards
David G