email - mensaje - GMail muestra correo electrónico de texto sin formato en lugar de HTML
mensaje cortado ver mensaje completo (1)
La aplicación My Rails 3 envía correos electrónicos en formato de texto plano y HTML. Lo he probado localmente utilizando los clientes de RoundCube y Squirrel Mail y ambos muestran la versión HTML con imágenes, enlaces, etc. GMail por otro lado elige el formato de texto sin formato. ¿Alguna idea de lo que está causando esto?
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: by 10.42.166.2 with SMTP id m2cs16081icy;
Thu, 3 Mar 2011 17:01:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.229.211.138 with SMTP id go10mr1544841qcb.195.1299200507499;
Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:01:47 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: from beta.example.com (testtest.test.com [69.123.123.123])
by mx.google.com with ESMTP id j14si1690118qcu.136.2011.03.03.17.01.46;
Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:01:46 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 69.123.123.123 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of [email protected]) client-ip=69.123.123.123;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 69.123.123.123 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of [email protected]) [email protected]
Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by beta.example.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3C273A3EC
for <[email protected]>; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 01:01:45 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 01:01:45 +0000
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Subject: Your example account was activated.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="--==_mimepart_4d7039f9e6967_3449482ab7831370";
charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
----==_mimepart_4d7039f9e6967_3449482ab7831370
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 01:01:45 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-ID: <[email protected]>
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type" />
</head>
<body>
<p><a href="http://example.com/"><img border="0" src="http://example.com/images/logo.png" alt="example logo" /></a></p>
<p>Congratulations, Test!</p>
<p>
Your <a style="text-decoration:none;color:#ef4923;" href="http://example.com/">example</a> account was activated.
</p>
</body>
</html>
----==_mimepart_4d7039f9e6967_3449482ab7831370
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 01:01:45 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-ID: <[email protected]>
Congratulations, Test!
Your example.com account was activated.
----==_mimepart_4d7039f9e6967_3449482ab7831370--
Intente cambiar el orden de las partes del mensaje, colocando la parte HTML después de la parte de texto sin formato. Podría funcionar :).
NOTA : No puedo recordar ahora dónde lo leí (o si lo hice con seguridad), pero la razón por la que cambiar podría ayudar es porque creo que la parte preferida del mensaje puede ser la última parte.
Actualización : encontré un lugar donde dice que las partes en un mensaje MIME multiparte deberían estar en orden de preferencia creciente - here , en la sección 7.2.3 (edición: la última versión here ; gracias @ALEXintlsos !), Comenzando con la tercera para ultimo parrafo.
Actualización : Aquí hay una cita de la sección 7.2.3, (vea https://.com/help/referencing ):
7.2.3 The Multipart/alternative subtype
The multipart/alternative type is syntactically identical to multipart/mixed,
but the semantics are different. In particular, each of the parts is an
"alternative" version of the same information. User agents should recognize
that the content of the various parts are interchangeable. The user agent
should either choose the "best" type based on the user''s environment and
preferences, or offer the user the available alternatives. In general, choosing
the best type means displaying only the LAST part that can be displayed. This
may be used, for example, to send mail in a fancy text format in such a way
that it can easily be displayed anywhere:
From: Nathaniel Borenstein <[email protected]>
To: Ned Freed <[email protected]>
Subject: Formatted text mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=boundary42
--boundary42
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
...plain text version of message goes here....
--boundary42
Content-Type: text/richtext
.... richtext version of same message goes here ...
--boundary42
Content-Type: text/x-whatever
.... fanciest formatted version of same message goes here
...
--boundary42--
In this example, users whose mail system understood the "text/x-whatever"
format would see only the fancy version, while other users would see only the
richtext or plain text version, depending on the capabilities of their system.
In general, user agents that compose multipart/alternative entities should
place the body parts in increasing order of preference, that is, with the
preferred format last. For fancy text, the sending user agent should put the
plainest format first and the richest format last. Receiving user agents should
pick and display the last format they are capable of displaying. In the case
where one of the alternatives is itself of type "multipart" and contains
unrecognized sub-parts, the user agent may choose either to show that
alternative, an earlier alternative, or both.
NOTE: From an implementor''s perspective, it might seem more sensible to reverse
this ordering, and have the plainest alternative last. However, placing the
plainest alternative first is the friendliest possible option when
multipart/alternative entities are viewed using a non-MIME- compliant mail
reader. While this approach does impose some burden on compliant mail readers,
interoperability with older mail readers was deemed to be more important in
this case.
It may be the case that some user agents, if they can recognize more than one
of the formats, will prefer to offer the user the choice of which format to
view. This makes sense, for example, if mail includes both a nicely-formatted
image version and an easily-edited text version. What is most critical, however,
is that the user not automatically be shown multiple versions of the same data.
Either the user should be shown the last recognized version or should
explicitly be given the choice.