Quote:
Originally Posted by evilquoll
... The reply is auto-included as an attachment in .EML format, but this is not a good idea as (1) I suspect a lot of people won't be able to open this file, and may not even know what it is; (2) not including it inline defeats the purpose of including it at all; and (3) several email providers mistake this type of file for a binary which could be a vector for malicious code (it's actually a UNIX text file)...
|
As previously noted, it's easy to change the reply behavior to inline. I don't see the big problem if you do include a .eml attachment, since it has been a common format for saving email for many years. In particular, you can read the .eml attachment using:
- Fastmail web interface: Click View for that attachment and you will see a new window which shows the original email. My original test message had two .eml attachments, and I can read an .eml message inside a .eml message.
- Gmail web interface: The original .eml attachment message and sub-messages (.eml attachments as described above to the .eml main message) are automatically expanded inline.
- Yahoo web interface: The original message inside the .eml attachments is displayed inline automatically. Sub-messages are shown as attachments.
- AOL web interface: The .eml attachment message and sub-messages are automatically opened inline, similar to Gmail.
- Outlook.com web interface: I can read the .eml attachment main message and see the .eml sub-messages.
- Outlook email client: I can read the .eml attachment and the .eml sub-messages.
- Thunderbird email client: I can read the .eml attachment and the .eml sub-messages.
So the .eml attachment type is very commonly used in web interfaces for email providers and in email clients. Which popular systems don't handle .eml correctly?
Bill