GMail отображает текстовое сообщение вместо HTML

Приложение My Rails 3 отправляет электронные письма как в текстовом формате, так и в формате HTML. Я тестировал его локально с помощью клиентов RoundCube и Squirrel Mail, и они оба отображают HTML-версию с изображениями, ссылками и т.д. GMail, с другой стороны, выбирает простой текстовый формат. Любая идея, что вызывает это?

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;
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="#" onclick="location.href='http://example.com/'; return false;"><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="#" onclick="location.href='http://example.com/'; return false;">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--

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 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 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.

Ответ 1