GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 793639
Support for Content-Type: multipart/mixed
Last modified: 2018-04-13 05:38:37 UTC
New to emailing but it looks like Geary does not support Content-Type: multipart/mixed . The idea of multipart/mixed: Mail body contains different content-types, but they are all part of the body. Not to be confused with multipart/alternative, where the receiver can choose between an html or a plaintext email. Example usage: typing a text/plain email and having a text/html signature appended automatically. Current behaviour: When previewing a message, the plaintext part is shown. When viewing the message, the html part is shown. Expected behaviour: When viewing the message, the plaintext part and html parts are both shown (concatenated). Example (part of email): Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="xxxxxxxx" Content-Disposition: inline --xxxxxxxx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline This is the plaintext part of the email --xxxxxxxx Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline; filename="signature.html" <p>This is the signature</p> --xxxxxxxx --
Yep, Geary's handling of more esoteric MIME containers could certainly be improved. IIRC this is also how e.g. Apple Mail sends plain text messages with inline images. Bug 769868 is aiming to support multipart/mixed, so I'll mark this as a duplicate of that. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 769868 ***
Hmm, actually, Bug 769868 is more about displaying multipart/mixed, whereas this is more about sending multipart/mixed, right? I certainly agree that it's useful as in the Apple use case for sending plain text messages with inline images, but what's your use case for sending text/plain bodies with text/html signatures? I.e. what does sending them separately enable that can't be done with a single text/html part that contains both message body and signature?
Actually, this bug is about displaying a received email. I noticed it upon receiving a multipart email. The email I received contained a HTML signature and plaintext body. I have no clue as to what reason the email was sent like this (neither which client was used). So yes, duplicate sounds good.
Oh I see, thanks for the followup! *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 769868 ***