3 ms·
I disagree, not even bold face is needed for effective communication. Besides, if you send me a mail with all these features, it will either not be displayed at
by jonathanstrange 9y ago
I disagree, not even bold face is needed for effective communication. Besides, if you send me a mail with all these features, it will either not be displayed at all by my mail program, or as garbage, or, if you're lucky, as plaintext.
But a markdown formatter that sends the plaintext part as markdown seems like the perfect solution for both worlds. I don't mind reading markdown, it's designed for being readable, and I also write it often.
- pbhjpbhj 9y agoThe are plenty of good mua that display html emails well though, so it sounds like your choice to avoid receiving them properly; a choice you're entitled to but not an argument against allowing visually formatting and graphics in emails.
- jonathanstrange 9y agoOf course it's my choice,and I've also set up clawsmail to display HTML mail by the press of a button. The point is that I'm not the only one. With plaintext mail you can reach everyone, with HTML mail only a fraction of that. If you send HTML mails, they're simply more likely to land in the spam folder, where 80% of all HTML mails belong.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago>With plaintext mail you can reach everyone, with HTML mail only a fraction of that. // Any stats on that? I'd reckon you're in 5x9s territory for those that are reachable by HTML mail (vs. plaintext). Also I don't know about other mail clients but Thunderbird has a setting to send HTML email in plaintext too, choose your poison. For me text based emails are far less common and are more often than not "Hi, my name Lena, I saw your info on Facebook and want to know you well [...]". Indeed the only non-spam plaintext emails I can recall are dev mailing list mails.