GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 550767
[prefer-plain] Add a "reply in same format" option.
Last modified: 2010-11-25 21:31:10 UTC
In Evolution 2.22.3.1, under Edit -> Preferences -> Composer Preferences, there is a tick box for "Format messages in HTML". I.e. you can say to always send plain text messages, or always have HTML messages. However, it would be nicer to have a some more detailed options here - something like "reply in the same format". That way, replying to an HTML email would send an HTML email (which presumably the sender would be happy with, since they sent an HTML email originally), and replying to a plain text email would send a plain text email reply (i.e. this option would behave reciprocally, which is almost always a good idea). Then for new messages, you could have another option, to format in plain text or in HTML. The most useful default behavior, I suspect, would be to always reply in the same format, but to start new messages in plain text.
Matt, I do not think this is question on prefer-plain plugin. But it is related, that's right. Nick, when you'll force show messages in a plain text format, but user sent you an email in HTML, what format would you expect to reply to him/her? I would prefer HTML, as it's the format written initially in. Also, some meeting invites can have three different parts, like a plain text part, an HTML part and the calendar part. Even it's quite unlikely to reply to such messages then what would one expect here? Please notice also an option in your contact, telling you about preference in HTML messages for the person.
> when you'll force show messages in a plain text format, but user sent you > an email in HTML, what format would you expect to reply to him/her? I would > prefer HTML, as it's the format written initially in. Yes, I would prefer to reply in HTML in that situation too. I think if someone sends you HTML, it's only natural to reply in the same format, and by sending the message in HTML, they are implicitly saying that they can read mail in that format too (if people are sending mail that they themselves cannot read, and are expecting replies in a different format, then that doesn't make a lot of sense to me). > Also, some meeting > invites can have three different parts, like a plain text part, an HTML part > and the calendar part. Even it's quite unlikely to reply to such messages > then what would one expect here? Does a normal non-calendar HTML mail have a plain text part? ( I don't know, I'm really asking. ) If it does, then it's similar to replying to an HTML mail, and we should respect their choice and use HTML if we are trying to reply in the same format. If a normal HTML mail does not have a plain text part, then to me that's their client saying that we can reply in either HTML mail or plain text, at our preference. > Please notice also an option in your contact, > telling you about preference in HTML messages for the person. Yes, and I find this confusing, because there are so many places for saying what format to use. There's Edit->Prefences, there's a contact's "Wants to receive HTML mail" setting, and then there's the format that they mail you in. The question is which do you use, especially if they conflict? To me, the least trustworthy of those sources of information is the contact's "Wants to receive HTML mail" setting. How can I ever really know what format someone wants to receive their email in, unless they explicitly tell me? (And that's happened to me about 3 times in my whole life, mostly when HTML mail was new and some tech friends really hated it and had rants against it - but that was years ago, and I don't really hear people getting upset about it much any more). Furthermore, people can and do permanently change mail clients so that their preferences change, and again, unless those people explicitly tell everyone who has them as a contact, then this information will be out-of-date or wrong. So most of the time, this contact information is just not as reliable as looking at what format mail they sends us. So it only seems useful when sending a new mail to that person, when our client has no information to base it's format on. The most trustworthy is the format they mailed us in, for the reasons outlined above. Basically, that's the communication format they've picked, and it's polite to respect their choice. The middle-level of trustworthiness is our choice of preferred format. It's very likely to be correct, but (to me) politeness dictates that using the sender's choice of format should generally be used above our preference. I think the logical arrangement of composer preferences is something like this: ----------------------------------------- For send new messages, use: ( ) Plain text (*) The contact's information, with plain text as a fallback. ( ) HTML format For replying, use: ( ) Plain text (*) Reply in the same format ( ) HTML format ----------------------------------------- (With possible defaults shown as selected.) The bit I'm not sure about is if you're starting a new message, and are sending it to two contacts, and one wants HTML mail, and one does not. Not sure what format to use then! Probably the lowest-common-denominator (i.e. plain text) is best when there's a conflict between two contacts. Also if we mail someone who is not a contact, then we have to make a decision about what format to use if the "contact's information" option is ticked. Plain text probably makes the most sense in this situation. This and the paragraph above are why the "The contact's information" option includes the "with plain text as a fallback" bit. It's conceivable though that someone might want an option for: "The contact's information, with HTML format as a fallback."
Could this be, in a simpler form, being fixed with bug #481915, to just use the part which was shown in the preview, not the best one from multipart/alternative part?
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 481915 ***