By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
437,724 Members | 1,655 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 437,724 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

HTML Page into Email

P: n/a
I have an HTML page which is a newsletter. I want to be able to add it to an
email message so I can email it to people. I want it to be in the body of
the email, not sent as an attachment.

There is a .htm page, several images, and a .css page. I need all of these
to be embedded for the page to work correctly. I can put the styles from the
..css file into the html page, but I still need to know how to embed the
images.

I tried creating stationary, but it didn't put the images in the email.

I know it is possible to do this. Can someone give me some pointers as to
how to get an HTML page along with several images into an email message.

I am currently using Outlook 2003.

Thanks!
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
7 Replies


P: n/a
TLMM tl*@www.com wrote:

I have an HTML page which is a newsletter. I want to be able to add it to an
email message so I can email it to people. I want it to be in the body of
the email, not sent as an attachment.


I have an email client that very helpfully strips out the html and shows
me just the text but lets me know that the email was html so that in
future I can block the sender and not have to even bother to download the
rubbish

send the newsletter as plain text...put a link at the top of the
newsletter to a web page displaying the html version

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:35:48 +0100, Eric Jarvis <we*@ericjarvis.co.uk>
wrote:
I have an email client that very helpfully strips out the html and shows
me just the text but lets me know that the email was html so that in
future I can block the sender and not have to even bother to download the
rubbish


Indeed.

So let's encourage this guy. We want to keep this crud easily
recognisable.

Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
"TLMM" <tl*@www.com> wrote in message news:<2M********************@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>...
I have an HTML page which is a newsletter. I want to be able to add it to an
email message so I can email it to people. I want it to be in the body of
the email, not sent as an attachment.
Some discussion of HTML e-mail:
http://mailformat.dan.info/body/html.html
There is a .htm page,
The bogus dumbed-down extension for people and programs that can't
handle the correct .html extension...
several images, and a .css page. I need all of these
to be embedded for the page to work correctly. I can put the styles from the
.css file into the html page, but I still need to know how to embed the
images.
It's done by multipart MIME messages, where attached parts can be
referenced from HTML documents via "cid:" URIs referring to content
IDs. More info:

http://mailformat.dan.info/headers/mime.html
I tried creating stationary, but it didn't put the images in the email.
If something is "stationary", that means that it's motionless; it's
not very surprising then that it doesn't do anything. Perhaps you
mean to use "stationery"?
I am currently using Outlook 2003.


Big mistake. Outhouse sucks.

Just read all the relevant RFCs describing MIME attachment format and
the "cid:" URI scheme, then whip up a custom Perl script to generate
the message of the format you want untouched by Microshaft products
(running on a Linux server, of course). Piece of cake.

--
Dan
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
There is a .htm page,


The bogus dumbed-down extension for people and programs that can't
handle the correct .html extension...


It's the *people* that are the problem; the software can cope. But on
one point I would have to quibble with you: there is no "correct
extension" in URLs. The content-type of a WWW resource is determined
- according to HTTP specifications - by the HTTP Content-type header:
and that's official. And pffffft to anyone who behaves otherwise
(Opera, that means you, too...).

The apparent filename extension in a URL has nothing, directly, to do
with it (although it might have internal significance to the web
server - but it could equally be .shtm or .php or whatever and still
produce a text/html content-type). There doesn't even have to be a
filename extension (in fact, if you use Apache MultiViews, it's better
*not* to have one).

Sure, the .html extension is certainly *conventional*, and - like all
such matters - there are advantages in going along with what's
expected, unless you find some major net benefit to be achieved by
doing things differently. And the .htm extension seems to be a "dead
giveaway" that the information provider is a serf to the Empire...

I was using ".html" URLs when my HTTPD was running on Windows/3.1 in
1994. Many times I've seen folks claiming, completely incorrectly,
that URLs hosted on "DOS" filesystems *have* to be like ".HTM", but
this only proves that they are (a) misinformed and (b) don't
understand the distinction between a URL and a filename.

(And, by the way, today's equivalent misunderstanding is the incorrect
belief that URLs on Windows-based servers are case-insensitive.)

best
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
On 21 Apr 2004 07:53:16 -0700, da*@tobias.name (Daniel R. Tobias)
wrote:
There is a .htm page,


The bogus dumbed-down extension for people and programs that can't
handle the correct .html extension...


..htm is not "bogus", nor is .html "correct".

If they were, there wouldn't be any argument over which to use. As it
is though, there just isn't any reason at all to favour one other the
other.

The only thing that's bogus is to forget that whilst HTML files have
file extensions, HTML documents and web pages do not - they have a
HTTP content-type header.
--
Smert' spamionam
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a

"Andy Dingley" <di*****@codesmiths.com> wrote in message
news:v7********************************@4ax.com...
On 21 Apr 2004 07:53:16 -0700, da*@tobias.name (Daniel R. Tobias)
wrote:
There is a .htm page,


The bogus dumbed-down extension for people and programs that can't
handle the correct .html extension...


.htm is not "bogus", nor is .html "correct".


Put it this way: how many images on the Internet have extension "jpg" and
how many have "jpeg"? Which is the more common, by far? Which, if either, is
correct and which, if either, is bogus, and why?

Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
TLMM wrote:
I have an HTML page which is a newsletter. I want to be able to add it to
an email message so I can email it to people. I want it to be in the body
of the email, not sent as an attachment.
I have a filter here that drops HTML e-mail directly into "trash" and I
periodically randomly empty "trash". So, the chances are if I get HTML
e-mail I will never see it, as virtually no legitimate e-mail to my
addresses should contain HTML (and the few legitimate HTML e-mails I catch
usually get a reply saying "please don't send HTML garbage here").
I know it is possible to do this.


It's possible to do 50 mph over the speed limit on certain freeways around
here, too. Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Consider converting the newsletter to plain text for e-mailing.

--
Shawn K. Quinn
Jul 20 '05 #8

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.