Re: should we use plaintext for message?
Wesley Peng writes: > ... > Shall we use plaintext message in regular email communication? If somebody use Linux/*BSD, i would like to accept HTML messages with pleasure! Because most Linux/*BSD users send messages as plaintext. It was just personal opinion. Sincerely, Byung-Hee -- ^고맙습니다 _白衣從軍_ 감사합니다_^))//
Re: should we use plaintext for message?
Darac Marjal wrote: > This is where your ~/.mailcap file comes in. This is a great file > for registering viewers for MIME types. So, for example, I have the > following in my Mailcap: ... > application/pdf; pdftotext %s -; copiousoutput I suggest using the pdftotext -layout option. It can significantly improve the look of the result. Without that option it can have an effect similar to runnings 'strings' on a binary file and is useful but often word soup too. But with the -layout option it tries to recreate the original layout. For just typical things like invoices and documentation and such the -layout option can give a surprisingly good representation. Give pdftotext -layout a try. I am using this: application/pdf; /usr/bin/pdftotext -layout %s -; copiousoutput; test=test "$DISPLAY" = ""; description=Portable Document Format; nametemplate=%s.pdf Note: By using the DISPLAY test it means I only get this action if I am not using a graphical display. Such as when logged in using ssh. But if I am using a graphical display then the graphical clients listed in /etc/mailcap will be used instead and I will see the graphical rendering of it. grep application/pdf /etc/mailcap This isn't a mutt list and we have already gone off topic from Postfix but since I said the above I will continue for one more tidbit and then stop. The auto_view can work but getting a configuration that is nice as defined by the user can be difficult. Instead if one 'v'iews the MIME parts, selects the part such as text/html or application/pdf and then uses 'm' to view-mailcap on the selected MIME part then it will run the mailcap defined action regardless of the auto_views configuration. I find that strategy to be more universial as some software distros have patched mutt in this area making each of them behave differently with regard to MIME part viewing by default and auto_views. But using 'v' and 'm' work uniformly across them. Regardless of being able to deal with non-plain-text email fairly well I still much prefer plain text email. Plain text is best. I keep threatening some of the worse offenders that I am going to draw my response in crayon, scan in the image, and send back my responses that way, as my preferred visual rendering! Bob
Re: should we use plaintext for message?
On 20/03/2020 16:07, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
> Dnia 20.03.2020 o godz. 11:48:59 Gerard E. Seibert pisze:
>> When I receive an email, I have two immediate choices to make; either
>> read it or don't read it.
> Let's say I decide to read it, so I press ENTER on the message header.
> If it's plaintext, I continue straight on to reading it.
> If it's HTML (without corresponding alternate plaintext part), I see only a
> bunch of unreadable HTML tags. Sometimes even whem plaintext part is
> present, it's formatted as everything-in-one-long-line, which is also hardly
> readable.
> Then I have to back out to message index, display attachment list for the
> message, find the HTML part and press ENTER on it to launch web browser and
> view the message in browser.
> So it's much more effort needed to read HTML-only mail compared to
> plaintext.
Your User-Agent header states that you're using Mutt. Did you know that
Mutt has some very good options when it comes to viewing HTML mail?
Firstly, there's the "alternative_order" directive. This takes a list of
MIME types and, when the body of an email has alternative types, Mutt
picks the first one on the list to display. So, in other words, if you
set this to "text/plain text/enriched text/html" then you get the
lightest-weight version by preference; if you set it to "text/html
text/enriched text/plain", then you get the most full-featured one by
preference.
Next up, there's the "auto_view" directive. This takes a list of MIME
types which, instead of being presented attachment-like are presented as
body. So you can list "text/html", "application/pdf" even whatever the
abomination is that Microsoft Word's documents are registered as :) But
how can Mutt display PDFs, DOCXs and so on? This is where your
~/.mailcap file comes in. This is a great file for registering viewers
for MIME types. So, for example, I have the following in my Mailcap:
text/html; uconv -f %{charset} < %s | elinks -dump 1 -dump-width 130
-dump-color-mode 0 -dump-charset utf-8 -default-mime-type text/html
-config-dir ~/.mutt/ ; nametemplate=%s.html ; copiousoutput
application/msword; antiword %s; copiousoutput
application/pdf; pdftotext %s -; copiousoutput
Here, I use elinks to dump the HTML to text, antiword to dump Word
documents to text and pdftotext to do "what it says on the tin". The
"copiousoutput" flag means that the command is likely to produce more
than a few lines of output. Mutt will invoke these filters on an
"auto_view" MIME part and use the output as body text.
My point being that if you're seeing HTML tags when reading email,
you've probably just not configured your MUA correctly.
>> I have
>> yet to understand this hatred of HTML email.
> Is it easier to understand now? :)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
now officially [OT]; was Re: should we use plaintext for message?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 3/20/20 3:29 PM, Ben Lavender wrote: > I prefer text/plain myself, it gets rid of all the annoying > marketing images and silly fonts people like to use. It also proves > a point that modern day marketing of nice long mail signatures with > company branding on them can be pointless when milters and antispam > services remove most of them anyway. > > It also reduces messages sizes as well. > > On 20/03/2020 14:02, @lbutlr wrote: >> On 19 Mar 2020, at 00:16, Philip Paeps >> wrote: >>> On 2020-03-18 09:51:45 (+0800), Wesley Peng wrote: Following this guide: https://useplaintext.email/ Dipping into this thread (sorry, i haven't read *all* the posts) to share my own preferences as well as ask a question. i do my best to configure *all* my email clients to only send in plain-text -- i use multiple clients (debian GNU/linux on my desktop and a Samsung Android phone) though it's starting to feel like a bit of a losing battle. The thing is, i'm now intentionally subscribed to receive email correspondence from a bunch of places (Barnes, CAC.org, Edgar Cayce's ARE, The Shift Network, and many others) that send HTML email. On sylpheed, claws-mail and kmail, when the message *doesn't* have a plaintext fallback duplicate message included (and/or when B forgets to include the "view this message in a browser" simple link), i'm stuck, sometimes unable to view *any* content in the message (unless i open up a web-client for the particular service (gmail or gmx.com) that delivers my email or pull my phone out to view the message there). On the "guide" at the bottom of what i quoted from the thread above, i saw that sylpheed was in the second stanza of clients (not the first that have plaintext sending auto-configured properly). Which is confusing to me. Can sylpheed really have the ability to compose and send HTML messages when it won't reliably display them?!?!?!? Maybe debian bundles in an older version than is current which doesn't have the functionality i'm looking for? (the ability to display HTML messages properly when possible). Version 3.7.0 (Build 1185) is what i'm running (on currently stable debian (on three different computers)). thanks much in advance for any insight, and apologies for the non-postfix related "noise", ~c - -- Charlie Derr Director, Instructional Technology 413-528-7344 https://www.simons-rock.edu Bard College at Simon's Rock Encryption key: http://hope.simons-rock.edu/~cderr/ Personal writing: https://medium.com/@cderr Pronouns: he or they -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEETiJHl0qlojpckrtNu4s9czGpNn8FAl51H/4ACgkQu4s9czGp Nn8coBAAwrL5RDAKsGQolGt301mVdAaoPdZAe/DHS0zwYoyMCgMi+hH/GVjdpU0E pY7jQblSRdhNkifGdF5Jt/vs0GVNNVu1WvYNOFHirbVY9k78YAB8yKXL8fE2aSEA SBZ5DCgUy/a5ekw5VgHSbH/lBXnX43Gc1JMCqfeSgRExk5/VHBC8qBuu+BtsU0/J cA+iNkJfxv+2YhjDS8EPgtsZjc978i/SbhJm9c4t0hTptzITGtKHdHw09quupYui GSbTrc+rFt0PLsLxP47Z9daOCVcndjGfQEsyrl0+Qzi6nAQTHVi3NwzLQluHOilh CX0mW98csHSX9T/Z6I/r/NocdB0hrzKdPIscE3MX00tJRM3rPi1Y16V6p1cMcSbi RInkguqqZMFACX8d6jgQHfJGkXH53QOJEcKH4e4B2mVfISobn8go0knLox0tTwjp vzFfdAGJrkgq+Sea2hCyD/jvuRMN7gqTdxTUnzawMzrKssF6nxagV3+LuBDEiqXh 32OXhMEMjtO0AUZx26lsBJoGMynSvtvHh06ia+wxM0+sXVNlzqmHu24hnRflwLvz Ow0R2UWBLcpBPNB4EsiAxWhOgTLB0QunCb642StjE4atgkwgIW/YfDUkzMq3j92i t14bMiJnyONzJ3pSOZtU0sVI5twQfSJp3mVTomXy/uzvjbb5qNM= =6371 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: should we use plaintext for message?
I prefer text/plain myself, it gets rid of all the annoying marketing images and silly fonts people like to use. It also proves a point that modern day marketing of nice long mail signatures with company branding on them can be pointless when milters and antispam services remove most of them anyway. It also reduces messages sizes as well. On 20/03/2020 14:02, @lbutlr wrote: On 19 Mar 2020, at 00:16, Philip Paeps wrote: On 2020-03-18 09:51:45 (+0800), Wesley Peng wrote: Following this guide: https://useplaintext.email/ Shall we use plaintext message in regular email communication? You should use what the content of the message needs modulo your recipients' wishes. I personally prefer to receive plain text but I don't mind receiving conservatively marked up HTML email (e.g. emphasis, hyperlinks, tables, ... even embedded images if the message requires them). Others may (will) have other preferences. The problem with the position is that many people feel their messages RECQUIRE their colorful signature, large corporate logo, and 14 line of meaningless “This message is private communication… blah blah” (I use to post those emails to sites like pastern and send the person the link, but now I just delete them unread) In my experience, plain text suffices for the vast majority of mailing list discussions. And in the very few cases where an image is required it is better to link to the image. Once you allow any image or HTML it becomes impossible to limit it to only the necessary formatting. Trying to force people to limit themselves to plain text is not a productive use of anyone's time. That’s why the best solution is for the mailing list to simply strip all attachments and also reject messages that do not have text/plain parts. This takes no time and no one needs to waste time or be bothered about it and there’s also no one to complain to since it’s all automated. The people who really can’t deal without having their pink text handwriting font on a lime green background with an animated gif attached will either adapt or go away. script execution error (#127): sh: line 7:
Re: should we use plaintext for message?
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 17:07:00 +0100, Jaroslaw Rafa stated: >Dnia 20.03.2020 o godz. 11:48:59 Gerard E. Seibert pisze: >> >> When I receive an email, I have two immediate choices to make; either >> read it or don't read it. > >Let's say I decide to read it, so I press ENTER on the message header. >If it's plaintext, I continue straight on to reading it. >If it's HTML (without corresponding alternate plaintext part), I see >only a bunch of unreadable HTML tags. Sometimes even whem plaintext >part is present, it's formatted as everything-in-one-long-line, which >is also hardly readable. >Then I have to back out to message index, display attachment list for >the message, find the HTML part and press ENTER on it to launch web >browser and view the message in browser. >So it's much more effort needed to read HTML-only mail compared to >plaintext. > >> I have >> yet to understand this hatred of HTML email. > >Is it easier to understand now? :) No, it doesn't. I don't know what you are using for an MUA, I employ 'claws-mail' myself when working in a non MS Windows environment. CM will display the HTML just fine without any additional effort on my part. I CAN configure it not to do so; however, that then is my choice and not the senders problem. In fact, it is never the senders problem. If they insist on sending mail in a format you are not happy with, blacklist them and move on. Life is too short for all this agita. As someone else stated, on a mailing list, the admin can configure it to send mail in whatever format they like. If the sender doesn't like the decision, they can walk away. Again, no need for an extended period of anxiety. -- Gerard
Re: should we use plaintext for message?
On 3/20/20 11:48 AM, Gerard E. Seibert wrote: > > Honestly, I fail to see why receivers of HTML based emails seem to > feel they have a right to get themselves into a hissy fit and dictate > what type or form of email is permissible? Who made them GODS? > > When I receive an email, I have two immediate choices to make; either > read it or don't read it. From there, I can choose to save or archive > the message, delete it or potentially forward or reply to it. I have > yet to understand this hatred of HTML email. Perhaps the recipient has > Autophobia. Maybe it is related to Trypophobia. Perhaps it is something > entirely different. In any case, who cares? > > Personally, I prefer basic plain text. However, working for a > municipality has caused me to use HTML quite frequently. The adage "A > picture is worth a thousand words" is certainly relevant to this. > > In any case, I have so many more meaningful and useful things to > accomplish, that I just do not have the time to waste on such a > frivolous and doomed from the start attempt at convincing others that > there is only one acceptable way to do things and it is mine. > > Don't like HTML; then don't use it. However, you don't have the right > to tell others what then can do. The last time I checked, there was no > RFC against it. Simply blacklist the sender, the site or whatever and > get on with your life. > But, when you are using a mailing list, the list owner has the right to decide what gets sent on THEIR mailing list. -- Richard Damon
Re: should we use plaintext for message?
Dnia 20.03.2020 o godz. 11:48:59 Gerard E. Seibert pisze: > > When I receive an email, I have two immediate choices to make; either > read it or don't read it. Let's say I decide to read it, so I press ENTER on the message header. If it's plaintext, I continue straight on to reading it. If it's HTML (without corresponding alternate plaintext part), I see only a bunch of unreadable HTML tags. Sometimes even whem plaintext part is present, it's formatted as everything-in-one-long-line, which is also hardly readable. Then I have to back out to message index, display attachment list for the message, find the HTML part and press ENTER on it to launch web browser and view the message in browser. So it's much more effort needed to read HTML-only mail compared to plaintext. > I have > yet to understand this hatred of HTML email. Is it easier to understand now? :) -- Regards, Jaroslaw Rafa r...@rafa.eu.org -- "In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub."
Re: should we use plaintext for message?
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 08:02:19 -0600, @lbutlr stated: >On 19 Mar 2020, at 00:16, Philip Paeps wrote: >> On 2020-03-18 09:51:45 (+0800), Wesley Peng wrote: >>> Following this guide: >>> https://useplaintext.email/ >>> >>> Shall we use plaintext message in regular email communication? >> >> You should use what the content of the message needs modulo your >> recipients' wishes. >> >> I personally prefer to receive plain text but I don't mind receiving >> conservatively marked up HTML email (e.g. emphasis, hyperlinks, >> tables, ... even embedded images if the message requires them). >> Others may (will) have other preferences. > >The problem with the position is that many people feel their messages >RECQUIRE their colorful signature, large corporate logo, and 14 line >of meaningless “This message is private communication… blah blah” > >(I use to post those emails to sites like pastern and send the person >the link, but now I just delete them unread) > >> In my experience, plain text suffices for the vast majority of >> mailing list discussions. > >And in the very few cases where an image is required it is better to >link to the image. > >Once you allow any image or HTML it becomes impossible to limit it to >only the necessary formatting. > >> Trying to force people to limit themselves to plain text is not a >> productive use of anyone's time. > >That’s why the best solution is for the mailing list to simply strip >all attachments and also reject messages that do not have text/plain >parts. This takes no time and no one needs to waste time or be >bothered about it and there’s also no one to complain to since it’s >all automated. > >The people who really can’t deal without having their pink text >handwriting font on a lime green background with an animated gif >attached will either adapt or go away. > >script execution error (#127): sh: line 7: Honestly, I fail to see why receivers of HTML based emails seem to feel they have a right to get themselves into a hissy fit and dictate what type or form of email is permissible? Who made them GODS? When I receive an email, I have two immediate choices to make; either read it or don't read it. From there, I can choose to save or archive the message, delete it or potentially forward or reply to it. I have yet to understand this hatred of HTML email. Perhaps the recipient has Autophobia. Maybe it is related to Trypophobia. Perhaps it is something entirely different. In any case, who cares? Personally, I prefer basic plain text. However, working for a municipality has caused me to use HTML quite frequently. The adage "A picture is worth a thousand words" is certainly relevant to this. In any case, I have so many more meaningful and useful things to accomplish, that I just do not have the time to waste on such a frivolous and doomed from the start attempt at convincing others that there is only one acceptable way to do things and it is mine. Don't like HTML; then don't use it. However, you don't have the right to tell others what then can do. The last time I checked, there was no RFC against it. Simply blacklist the sender, the site or whatever and get on with your life. -- Gerard
Re: should we use plaintext for message?
On 19 Mar 2020, at 00:16, Philip Paeps wrote: > On 2020-03-18 09:51:45 (+0800), Wesley Peng wrote: >> Following this guide: >> https://useplaintext.email/ >> >> Shall we use plaintext message in regular email communication? > > You should use what the content of the message needs modulo your recipients' > wishes. > > I personally prefer to receive plain text but I don't mind receiving > conservatively marked up HTML email (e.g. emphasis, hyperlinks, tables, ... > even embedded images if the message requires them). Others may (will) have > other preferences. The problem with the position is that many people feel their messages RECQUIRE their colorful signature, large corporate logo, and 14 line of meaningless “This message is private communication… blah blah” (I use to post those emails to sites like pastern and send the person the link, but now I just delete them unread) > In my experience, plain text suffices for the vast majority of mailing list > discussions. And in the very few cases where an image is required it is better to link to the image. Once you allow any image or HTML it becomes impossible to limit it to only the necessary formatting. > Trying to force people to limit themselves to plain text is not a productive > use of anyone's time. That’s why the best solution is for the mailing list to simply strip all attachments and also reject messages that do not have text/plain parts. This takes no time and no one needs to waste time or be bothered about it and there’s also no one to complain to since it’s all automated. The people who really can’t deal without having their pink text handwriting font on a lime green background with an animated gif attached will either adapt or go away. script execution error (#127): sh: line 7:
Re: should we use plaintext for message?
Bob Proulx: > Wietse Venema wrote: > > I think this train has left the station almost 30 years ago. The > > only people who care about plaintext are people who were born before > > circa 1980, or who are part of some extremist minority. > > That isn't required to be a logical OR condition. It is possible for > me to be born before 1980 AND also be part of an extremist plain text > viewpoint at the same time. :-) Geek reply: it is logical OR, nor exclusive OR :-) Wietse
Re: should we use plaintext for message?
Wietse Venema wrote: > I think this train has left the station almost 30 years ago. The > only people who care about plaintext are people who were born before > circa 1980, or who are part of some extremist minority. That isn't required to be a logical OR condition. It is possible for me to be born before 1980 AND also be part of an extremist plain text viewpoint at the same time. :-) Bob
Re: should we use plaintext for message?
On 2020-03-18 09:51:45 (+0800), Wesley Peng wrote: Following this guide: https://useplaintext.email/ Shall we use plaintext message in regular email communication? You should use what the content of the message needs modulo your recipients' wishes. I personally prefer to receive plain text but I don't mind receiving conservatively marked up HTML email (e.g. emphasis, hyperlinks, tables, ... even embedded images if the message requires them). Others may (will) have other preferences. In my experience, plain text suffices for the vast majority of mailing list discussions. Trying to force people to limit themselves to plain text is not a productive use of anyone's time. Philip -- Philip Paeps Senior Reality Engineer Alternative Enterprises
Re: should we use plaintext for message?
Has anyone considered the absolute want of utility that image data presents for the blind? The advantage of plain text is that there are any number of automated assists that can process it into audio. -- *** e-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** Do NOT transmit sensitive data via e-Mail Do NOT open attachments nor follow links sent by e-Mail James B. Byrnemailto:byrn...@harte-lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3
Re: should we use plaintext for message?
On 2020-03-18 09:08, Wietse Venema wrote: > I think this train has left the station almost 30 years ago. The > only people who care about plaintext are people who were born before > circa 1980, > or who are part of some extremist minority. Which includes anyone who even _knows_ what comprises the body of their email. The modern internet business model is surveillance based. Plain text interferes with surveillance and will be marginalized. Users desiring certain features is not a significant component in these technical decisions. Outside of possibly being used as a carrot to get them to adopt a more efficient surveillance system. Obviously Great God Google is the king of this, but many many minions also participate (Constant Contact, etc). Users outside of the above mentioned extremist minority have no idea, or care, that they increase their vulnerability surface. johnea
Re: should we use plaintext for message?
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 03:27:24PM +, Darac Marjal wrote: On 18/03/2020 02:40, Anton Rieger wrote: On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 02:51:45AM +0100, Wesley Peng wrote: Hello Hello Following this guide: https://useplaintext.email/ I don't like it's tone but it's mostly ok Shall we use plaintext message in regular email communication? I use it regulary, except if I give tutorials in support mails with more than two images. It's way easier to refer to inline images than say: Do xyz like you see in image1.png. Lorem Ipsum look at image2.png. Or like[1] to look something[2] up. The problem there is that you've just re-invented markup. Cross-referencing some text to an image? Isn't that just txt or whatever? I think you mistook me. It was an example to show, that HTML inline images are far easier to follow than given examples. Especially for new users. I'm not against HTML. Just hate image only emails. Kinda reminds me of old flash only websites... But for typical short emails plain is often enough. There is clearly a desire among users for something more than plain text. You often want *emphasis* in flame wars. I'm using neomutt as MUA, so I can highlight *emphasis*. (Ncurses is capable of italics e.g.) It supports ANSI and/or rich text color codes, but is disabled by default as it might have security implications. So you can define own rules to replace stuff. I recreated some Markdown elements, as those are used most often and many know them from IM applications. HTML-only mails get piped through w3m to make them readable on a terminal. You want a table in reporting your financial results or when listing various things. As said above, some situations are suited for HTML mails, but I'd prefer some less complex markup language. BTW. ASCII tables exist (just joking around) However, I think everyone can agree that "Responsive emails", trackers, frameworks and so on and so on is just TOO MUCH. agreed I'd argue then, that a middle ground is the way forward. Emails should be written in a markup language which is both relatively simple (yet flexible enough to handle the basic formatting commands) and human readable before (and after) rendering. Markdown is a very good step towards this, IMO. agreed. Some use only stylistic html elements and not full blown html+css :) Thanks Regards Anton Rieger [1] image1.png [2] image2.png
Re: should we use plaintext for message?
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020, at 11:27, Darac Marjal wrote: > Markdown is a very good step > towards this, IMO. Oh the irony... >From the initial announcement of Markdown by John Gruber >(https://web.archive.org/web/20040402182332/http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/): " the single biggest source of inspiration for Markdown’s syntax is the format of plain text email." -- Harald
Re: should we use plaintext for message?
On 2020-03-18 03:40, Anton Rieger wrote: Do xyz like you see in image1.png. Lorem Ipsum look at image2.png. images is not html and OP asked to do plain text, not remove inline images attachments /me hiddes before the fire starts burning now
Re: should we use plaintext for message?
I think this train has left the station almost 30 years ago. The only people who care about plaintext are people who were born before circa 1980, or who are part of some extremist minority. Wietse.
Re: should we use plaintext for message?
On 2020-03-18 02:51, Wesley Peng wrote: Shall we use plaintext message in regular email communication? to make the postfix digest maillist look better yes :=)
Re: should we use plaintext for message?
Dnia 18.03.2020 o godz. 16:52:10 m...@junc.eu pisze: > On 2020-03-18 03:40, Anton Rieger wrote: > > >Do xyz like you see in image1.png. > >Lorem Ipsum look at image2.png. > > images is not html > > and OP asked to do plain text, not remove inline images attachments inline images != image attachments Plaintext email cannot have inline images, but can have image attachments. HTML email can have both. -- Regards, Jaroslaw Rafa r...@rafa.eu.org -- "In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub."
Re: should we use plaintext for message?
Dnia 18.03.2020 o godz. 15:27:24 Darac Marjal pisze: > > I'd argue then, that a middle ground is the way forward. Emails should > be written in a markup language which is both relatively simple (yet > flexible enough to handle the basic formatting commands) and human > readable before (and after) rendering. Markdown is a very good step > towards this, IMO. Well, but we need mail clients that support it :) -- Regards, Jaroslaw Rafa r...@rafa.eu.org -- "In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub."
Re: should we use plaintext for message?
On 2020-03-18 11:27, Darac Marjal wrote: > There is clearly a desire among users for something more than plain > text. You often want *emphasis* in flame wars. You want a table in > reporting your financial results or when listing various things. > However, I think everyone can agree that "Responsive emails", trackers, > frameworks and so on and so on is just TOO MUCH. > > I'd argue then, that a middle ground is the way forward. Emails should > be written in a markup language which is both relatively simple (yet > flexible enough to handle the basic formatting commands) and human > readable before (and after) rendering. Markdown is a very good step > towards this, IMO. I'd agree. Rich text with embedded images and hyperlinks, sure, but no active elements of any kind. -- Phil Stracchino Babylon Communications ph...@caerllewys.net p...@co.ordinate.org Landline: +1.603.293.8485 Mobile: +1.603.998.6958 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: should we use plaintext for message?
On 18/03/2020 02:40, Anton Rieger wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 02:51:45AM +0100, Wesley Peng wrote: >> Hello > Hello > >> >> Following this guide: >> https://useplaintext.email/ > I don't like it's tone but it's mostly ok > >> >> Shall we use plaintext message in regular email communication? > I use it regulary, except if I give tutorials in support mails with > more than two images. > It's way easier to refer to inline images than say: > > Do xyz like you see in image1.png. > Lorem Ipsum look at image2.png. > > Or like[1] to look something[2] up. The problem there is that you've just re-invented markup. Cross-referencing some text to an image? Isn't that just txt or whatever? There is clearly a desire among users for something more than plain text. You often want *emphasis* in flame wars. You want a table in reporting your financial results or when listing various things. However, I think everyone can agree that "Responsive emails", trackers, frameworks and so on and so on is just TOO MUCH. I'd argue then, that a middle ground is the way forward. Emails should be written in a markup language which is both relatively simple (yet flexible enough to handle the basic formatting commands) and human readable before (and after) rendering. Markdown is a very good step towards this, IMO. > >> >> Thanks > > Regards > Anton Rieger > > [1] image1.png > [2] image2.png signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: should we use plaintext for message?
Agree! On 18/3/20 9:51 am, Wesley Peng wrote: Hello Following this guide: https://useplaintext.email/ Shall we use plaintext message in regular email communication? Thanks
Re: should we use plaintext for message?
Dnia 18.03.2020 o godz. 02:51:45 Wesley Peng pisze: > > Following this guide: > https://useplaintext.email/ > > Shall we use plaintext message in regular email communication? Absolutely. Email basically is, was and should remain plaintext. Use HTML only when it's absolutely necessary. By "necessary" I *don't* mean "I just want to include fancy formatting in my email". One example of good use for HTML was already given here - to include inline images in the message (images that are there to actually explain something, not just to look nice). -- Regards, Jaroslaw Rafa r...@rafa.eu.org -- "In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub."
Re: should we use plaintext for message?
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 02:51:45AM +0100, Wesley Peng wrote: Hello Hello Following this guide: https://useplaintext.email/ I don't like it's tone but it's mostly ok Shall we use plaintext message in regular email communication? I use it regulary, except if I give tutorials in support mails with more than two images. It's way easier to refer to inline images than say: Do xyz like you see in image1.png. Lorem Ipsum look at image2.png. Or like[1] to look something[2] up. Thanks Regards Anton Rieger [1] image1.png [2] image2.png
Re: should we use plaintext for message?
Wesley Peng writes: > Hello > > Following this guide: > https://useplaintext.email/ > > Shall we use plaintext message in regular email communication? Yes, why not? Messages are smaller and more often than not, people are so bad at text presentation that their mails are plain ugly and hard to read. Plaintext offer very limited options when it comes to style, so less options to do a bad job. Olivier > Thanks > --
