[MlMt] forwarding HTML emails

[David Ledger]

On 17 Jan 2018, at 20:21, Tracy Valleau wrote:

> Thank you for your comments, Bill.
>
>> Not if you're using the 2.0BETA series, which has a plethora of 
>> controls
>> for perpetuating a bad idea in the Composer panel of the 
>> Preferences...
>
> I really just wanted an answer, not a political comment on whether or 
> not HTML email is "a bad idea".
> HTML email is -a reality- with which one must deal.
>
> I started writing code in 1978, and was using email before most people 
> on this list were likely born. I'm not a big fan of HTML email myself, 
> but if I get one, and need to forward it to a client, then the client 
> should see what I saw, not an attachment.
>
> Almost every other email client in the world does this.
>
>>> If so, I'm curious as to why, technically. Since MM can show HTML
>>> emails now,
>>
>> When couldn't it?
>
> It couldn't in the first versions, when I started using it. (Mine was 
> order #63, Jan 12, 2011.)
>
>> This is fundamentally problematic because "just forward them" does 
>> not
>> have a well-defined technical meaning other than embedding the full
>> original message as an attachment.
>
> I was simplifying to express my request clearly.
>
> HTML email is a few headers and HTML content. It is not any more 
> complex than a web page, basically.
>
> The issue is that when forwarding, MM strips out all the HTML code. 
> Try viewing the source of an HTML email and you'll see what I mean.
>
> My point is that the original source is IN the email,  else I'd not 
> see it all prettified, eh? So it's there.
>
> Why not "just" forward ALL that original source? The head, the tables, 
> the divs, the body... That way  the recipient would see what I see.
>
> I can understand not doing it for "political" reasons ("all email 
> should be text"). What I don't understand is why it isn't an option. 
> Mail can do it; Outlook can do it; Thunderbird can do it; PostBox can 
> do it...
>
> As a programmer with over 40 years of experience, I -can- understand 
> boxing one's self in to a point at which integrating the capability is 
> a huge amount of work. That would be a legitimate reason for not 
> offering it (albeit unfortunate.)
>
> But from a USER perspective, not being able to "just forward" HTML 
> email is odd, and from a recipient's standpoint... well in my 4 
> decades, I've -never- received an email that said "to see the html 
> version, click on the attachment."
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Tracy
> www.valleau.art

I’m not up to date with all the possibilities of modern emails, but I 
would imagine that the problem will be the ‘Content-Type:’ headers. 
They have to be in the right place for the text and HTML parts to make 
sense. I believe a header still has to be before the first blank line 
that isn’t part of the data for another header. If you want to forward 
with added text it would require a bit of juggling.

I think redirecting an email sends a replica with HTML part intact.

David