SM wrote:
> At 04:46 04-04-2008, Matt Kettler wrote:
>> However, in this case it looks purely accidental. That appears to be
>> a legitimate HTML document, or at least doesn't appear to be
>> intentionally malformed.

> In this case, the message wasn't formatted correctly as it's going to
> be rendered as a blank message (excluding attachments) by most MUAs.

Out of curiosity, did you spot where the error in the formatting is? I
looked at the message and failed to spot it...