Posted by Troy Piggins on 01/30/07 11:05

* Jussist is quoted & my replies are inline below :
> http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=html+email
> +good&word2=html+email+bad

Lol - never seen that sight before. I like it.

> It is not as simple as that. I've built one newsletter application,
> which creates the html-file, and saves it to server. The email sent
> consisted of two parts.
>
> 1) link to the newsletter
> 2) email as html
>
> If one couldn't see the html -version, they could easily click to the

So if you sent a plain text only with a link to the site, the
recipients could also easily click to the site :)

> site. Another choice would be to add all the contents as text-version

I think that is a must - so that people who use plain text MUAs
can also read the same content.

> also. HTML -email, when used as newsletter, has many advantages.

True - but I've received many poorly formed/worded html only
newsletters that get false-positived in spam filters, as one
example.

> Personally I prefer receiving txt-only, but I don not resent html.
>
> One could also argue, that html is bad in web as well. Use text only -
> the same information can be delivered. But websites, or email, is not
> just about content.

HTML and web pages go hand in hand, no question. Personally I
feel that the bandwidth consumption argument of HTML in emails is
not so relevant these days, so it you must sent HTML, make sure
you include plain text version as well. And if you want your
message to get through spam filters, make sure it is worded
"unspammy" and all the headers etc are correctly formed.
</personal preferences>

I just wanted the OP to be aware of downsides of HTML only
emails.

--
Troy Piggins ,-O (o- O All your sigs are belong to us.
http://piggo.com/~troy O ) //\ O
RLU#415538 `-O V_/_ OOO
hackerkey://v3sw5HPUhw5ln4pr6OSck1ma9u6LwXm5l6Di2e6t5MGSRb8OTen4g7OPa3Xs7MIr8p7

[Back to original message]