paulm at paulm.com
Tue Nov 13 17:26:12 GMT 2007
On Nov 13, 2007 9:01 AM, <ben at bpfh.net> wrote:
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.1 (2007-05-02) on
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 08:35:15AM -0800, Paul Makepeace wrote:
> >I think text/plain and 80-col wrapping is increasingly an anachronism.
> >text/html has taken over (seriously, get over it), and even where it
> >hasn't (like here), a mail reader should be able to display unwrapped
> >text/plain without leaving it unreadable. If that's not the case, my
> >harsh response would be "go fix it'.
> In my experience, text/html mail which lacks a valid text/plain part
> will be spam-scored out of existence, or outright rejected.
> In addition, at work we handle a significant volume of non-Western
> encoded mail and we still have a large number of vocal clients who
> rely upon the text/plain part of the mail, so it has to be
> semantic-equivalent to the text/html part.
(FWIW, I wasn't suggesting not having a text/plain part, but rather
than having it wrapped at the sending side at 80-col is kind of old.
The predominance of text/html over text/plain doesn't either, at least
IMO, mean we should toss text/plain. At least just yet.)
Arguably, a semantic equivalent of HTML is unwrapped plain text: no
<br />s in there...
Practically tho, wrapping at 80-col is more useful still.
> The above may, of course, be specific to our sector.
More information about the london.pm