`htmlBody` is a derived list, not a filter: RFC 8621 §4.1.4 gives a message
with no HTML alternative one anyway, holding the text/plain part. Testing
`Boolean(htmlRaw)` therefore answered "this is HTML" for every plain-text
mail, sending it to HtmlBody and `.ihm-email-root`, which is
`white-space: normal` and collapses every line break. Hard-wrapped mail
arrived as a single paragraph with the signature and the quoted reply run
into the prose.
Confirmed live against Stalwart 0.16.21 (2026-09-10): a plain-text message
comes back with `htmlBody` and `textBody` naming the same part, typed
text/plain, while a real multipart/alternative names two different parts.
`type` was already in BODY_PROPS; nothing looked at it.
TextBody was written for exactly these messages and was simply unreachable,
so this also restores what it does -- pre-wrap, quote-depth colouring and the
collapsible quoted block, none of which had ever fired on plain-text mail.
Closes#310.
A dark campaign rendered with beige cards inside it. markKeptSurfaces
marks any element whose declared background is below the luminance
threshold, with no area cap, so a 600px layout card is marked exactly
like a button. The CSS then exempted the marked element and its whole
subtree via [data-ihm-keep] *, so a light table nested in that card was
never touched. In the reported specimen 14 of 21 light panels survived.
The rule now is that being inside a painted surface is not inherited past
a sheet. The walk tracks that state and emits a second mark,
data-ihm-in-keep, for elements sitting on paint with no background of
their own; the CSS exempts those explicitly instead of exempting every
descendant. A nested light sheet ends the protection, and paint resumes
below it, so a button inside such a sheet is still kept whole.
The alternatives in the report were not taken. Dropping the descendant
half of the selector outright puts back what #294 fixed: a nested label
on a coloured cell loses its colour. An area threshold is a magic number
that misfires on both a legitimate hero banner and a small dark panel
with a light chip in it.
The tests assert against the neutraliser selector lifted out of
EMAIL_BASE_CSS rather than against the marks. The first draft of them
checked which attributes were set and passed against the unfixed code,
which proved nothing: the bug was in the rule that reads the marks, not
in the marking. All four fail without this change.
Appearance gained "Apply the theme to messages too" some time ago, and it
themes an HTML message only when the message brings no colours of its own.
That predicate is the right default and it almost never passes: one
`color:#FFFFFF` on one button label opts a whole message out, so in real
mail — receipts, shipping notices, anything from a template — the switch
did nothing at all and the reader kept a bright white card on a dark UI.
A second switch, off by default and only meaningful with the first on,
forces the palette over the sender's colours. It cannot be done perfectly,
which is why it is a separate, explicit choice: the same bargain a
dark-reader extension makes.
What it does is tell two kinds of colour apart. A *sheet* the design sits
on — the white 600px wrapper — is neutralised, and a *painted surface* —
a call to action, a footer banner — is kept whole so its label stays
legible on it. Relative luminance decides, at 0.5: white wrappers sit at
1.0, a blue button near 0.09. Only the painted ones are marked, with
data-ihm-keep, and one rule in EMAIL_BASE_CSS neutralises everything else.
Nothing the sender wrote is removed, so the switch is reversible, colours
arriving from a <style> block are covered as well as inline ones, and
print still pins the tokens to ink on white.
The mock grew the message this is about: an outer wrapper on
bgcolor="#ffffff", a <style> block, a coloured button, a grey footer.
Without one, neither the bug nor the fix could be seen.
Verified in a browser against the mock: with only the first switch on the
card is still white; with both, the wrapper computes to transparent, body
text follows the theme, and the button keeps white-on-blue. Two surfaces
marked, which are the two the message paints.
Closes#290
`BASE_PATH=/mail` mounts the whole app under a prefix, for a host that is not
ihasmail's alone. Unset -- every deployment that exists -- is the domain root
and is byte-for-byte what it was: the canonical form of the setting is the
empty string, and `""` concatenated onto `/api/health` is `/api/health`.
That choice of canonical form is the whole design. A trailing slash would have
been the obvious alternative, and it fails quietly in exactly one place: at the
root it makes `//api/health`, which is not a path on this host but a
protocol-relative URL to a host called `api`. One call site forgetting to
branch is a request leaving the origin. So the empty string, one leading slash,
no trailing one, worked out once in `scripts/basePath.mjs` -- plain JS, next to
`version.mjs`, because the web build and the server both have to reach the same
answer and two implementations of "what does /mail/ mean" is precisely the bug
where the server serves an app whose script tags point somewhere else.
`/mail`, `mail`, `/mail/` and `//mail//` all mean the same mount; a deployment
should not fail over a trailing slash.
Unlike everything else ihasmail is told, this one cannot wait for the process
to start. The bundle writes its own asset URLs into index.html, so `BASE_PATH`
is read at build time for Vite's `base` as well as at run time for the routes,
and the Dockerfile carries one value into both. Get them out of step and the
page comes up blank with a 404 in a console nobody has open -- so the static
handler, which is reading index.html anyway, checks what it asks for and says
so in the log once per build.
Everything moves together. The API mounts at `${base}/api`; the router is
given the base once, so every `<Route path>` and `<Link href>` stays written
root-absolute and wouter does the rest; `apiFetch` adds the prefix in one place
rather than at forty call sites; the session cookie's Path narrows to the mount
so two instances on one host cannot sign each other out.
Two things need no prefix at all, and it is worth saying why they were not
given one. A manifest's members resolve against the manifest's own address, so
relative URLs there follow the mount with nothing substituted at build time --
which is also why `public/` needed no template step. The service worker is the
same trick: it is served from the mount, so `new URL("./", self.location)`
tells it where that is, and a worker that derives the value cannot disagree
with the page that registered it.
Anything outside the mount is a 404 rather than the app shell, and
`stripBasePath` does not use `startsWith` -- under `/mail` this process shares
a hostname, and answering `/mailbox` with our index would shadow a neighbour
instead of letting it 404 honestly. For the same reason the notification-click
handler now checks the path as well as the origin: `includeUncontrolled` widens
`matchAll` to the whole origin, which off the root would have navigated a
stranger's tab to our inbox.
Inline images in a draft were the one silent trap. They are matched by their
blob URL on the way out, once unanchored and once anchored, and a bare
`/api/blob/` still appears inside `/mail/api/blob/...` -- so one pattern would
have replaced the tail and left `/mail` in front of a `cid:`, and the other
would have missed and sent the message linking to the sender's own webmail.
Both patterns are built from the base now.
A shadow root scopes selectors, not layout. `position:fixed` in mail CSS is
still positioned against the viewport, and the containment meant to stop that
sat inside the shadow root as `.ihm-email-root { contain: content }` — in the
same tree as the message's own <style>, which is inserted after it and simply
overrides it. Any sender could cover the entire window with markup of their
choosing, inside our own origin: a ready-made place to ask for a password.
Verified in a browser: the message rendered at exactly the viewport size with
the maximum z-index.
Moving the containment onto the shadow host does not fix it — mail CSS reaches
the host through `:host`, and an `!important` there beats an `!important` from
the app's own stylesheet, because importance reverses tree order in the
cascade. An ancestor of the host is the one thing mail CSS has no selector
for, so the control goes on .message-body. `layout` rather than `paint`: it
makes the element a containing block for fixed descendants without clipping
tall messages.
The sanitizer now also turns fixed and sticky positioning static and defangs
`:host`, as a second line that does not depend on one CSS declaration.
Checked end to end against the real stylesheet afterwards: the same message
renders 1678x112 instead of 1720x1279.
Messages render on a white card in every theme. That is deliberate for mail
that styles itself, but #4 points out the case it gets wrong: a message with
no styling of its own has nothing worth preserving, and flashing white at
someone reading in the dark is a real cost.
Appearance gains a switch under the theme cards, off by default so the
current behaviour is unchanged. With it on, HTML mail that declares no
colours follows the app theme; mail that sets a background or text colour
still gets the light card it was designed for, because half-darkening someone
else's design is worse than leaving it alone. Plain-text mail already
followed the theme and is untouched by the switch.
The themed palette is expressed in the app's own custom properties, which
cross the shadow boundary, so switching theme repaints open messages without
re-rendering them, and the accent-coloured link stays consistent. The host
element takes color-scheme: inherit so form controls and scrollbars inside a
message match too.
htmlDeclaresColors covers bgcolor attributes, <font color>, and colour or
background declarations in style attributes and <style> blocks, while
ignoring near-misses like border-color and ?color= in a URL.
Closes#4
jcoffey-dev