From: Randal Whittle (rwhittle_at_usa.net)
Date: Thu Jun 04 1998 - 15:04:35 EDT
At 04:34 PM 6/3/98 , Paul Khoury wrote:
>>I'm a bit confused myself. I didn't see a trace of HTML in Randall's (or
anyone
>>else's) post. I saw his long review, sans HTML. Why some of you received a
>>garbled message doesn't make sense, unless I missed something. Could the
message
>>have been too lengthly?
Chances are your mailer saw the HTML mail and your viewed it normally
without you knowing the difference--and you wouldn't know the difference
because there *wasn't* anything fancy about it. What happened was that I
switched from the default font to "Courier" to draw the ASCII diagram.
Once I did that, it treated the whole message as an HTML-formatted message,
unbeknownst to me.
>First, he sent an email with only an attachment which I couldn't open
>(called ATT00001.ATT), no text in the body, then he sent it with
>straight ASCII in the body (which I CAN read).
Actually, I didn't "attach" anything--that's why I was surprised about the
whole hubub. What you're seeing is how your mailer chose to deal with it.
-------
Randal J. Whittle whittle_at_usc.edu (213) 740-7775
Director, Electronic Commerce Program
Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:54:07 EST