4 ms·

Outside marketing, HTML has no place in email IMHO. Personally I run my self coded all in one mail server(SMTP & web & IMAP) binary and only use the text parts

Outside marketing, HTML has no place in email IMHO. Personally I run my self coded all in one mail server(SMTP & web & IMAP) binary and only use the text parts, or convert them to text. Any marketing email gets blacklisted(sender or domain) and don’t have to worry about them anymore. Last time I was on Gmail I remember that no matter how many times I would report something as spam(and unsubscribe) it would somehow still land in my inbox next time.

Spivak 9y ago
Look, I'm for plaintext emails as much as the next guy but there is a value in something that provides formatting. Users, very reasonably, would like to use bold, underline, strike-though, highlighting, section headers, lists, tables, inline images, etc.. HTML was a convenient choice of format at the time and it worked well enough with budding webmail clients. In a forum of tech enthusiasts we might be able to get away with emails exported from groff but we can't throw out all the useful features users like along with it.
- sfilargi 9y ago
  I think bold and links are enough. If you need more formatting just attach a document.
- yoz-y 9y ago
  If only they have decided to use something like markdown or rtf at the time. (Some mail clients do support it). IMO the problem with choosing HTML is that then it becomes tempting to embed a complete HTML rendering engine and try blacklisting elements or restricting it. This opens up a door for vulnerabilities. If e-mail used some format which only does formatting then it would be easier to avoid security problems.
  - petepete 9y ago
    A simple Markdown dialect would have been perfect, but Markdown's ability to embed HTML would just lead to abuse. For emails, headings, quotes, code blocks, hyperlinks, images and bold/italic/strikethrough is surely enough. Perhaps tables. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed.
    - yoz-y 9y ago
      Well, the advantage is that since e-mail is a plain text medium, it could be "forced" if clients started supporting it. And it would require zero hacks like this AMP thing and would also be 100% retro compatible if a markup language with sensible plain text legibility were chosen.
      - Spivak 9y ago
        Up to your ability to modify the client there's absolutely nothing that prevents you from sending a multipart email with text/markdown as one of the options. Shoudln't break any existing email clients. Obviously very few clients will be able to read it, or even acknowledge that it exists but it's something. Maybe someone on the other end will appreciate it.
lifty 9y ago
You say "all in one mail server(SMTP & web & IMAP) binary". Any chance that code is open source or available somewhere online? I think we are sorely missing some more integrated e-mail solutions that are easy to manage.
- e12e 9y ago
  Jmap lives (a little unfortunately IMNHO) as a Perl proxy for imap, mainly. I've thought about trying to put a jmap face on the postgres schema of dbmail.org - but so far it's just an idea. And the next idea is that if jmap is so great, why no go straight for "graphql mail" on top of a postgres schema with solid lmtp/smtp support...
- sfilargi 9y ago
  Yes, I do plan to make the source available as soon as it is something more than a toy and can be used by someone else other than me.
jonathanstrange 9y ago
I agree 100%. All of this fancy stuff is used to 99% percent for marketing, and that seems to be about the only thing Google cares about. There is no need for dynamic email content at all, on the contrary, it will significantly impede the work flow of many people. Google is one of the most destructive forces on the web for at least the past 10 years or so, they have extinguished Usenet and even try to replace http with their own proprietary technology. I have a feeling that their embrace & extinguish strategy will also work this time. Then again, I can't be the only one who marks all those newsletters and company info mails as spam and aggressively filters them out. No Facebook, Google, Apple, or other web site "news" reaches my eyes unless I want to.

Spivak 9y ago

Look, I'm for plaintext emails as much as the next guy but there is a value in something that provides formatting. Users, very reasonably, would like to use bold, underline, strike-though, highlighting, section headers, lists, tables, inline images, etc.. HTML was a convenient choice of format at the time and it worked well enough with budding webmail clients. In a forum of tech enthusiasts we might be able to get away with emails exported from groff but we can't throw out all the useful features users like along with it.

sfilargi 9y ago
I think bold and links are enough. If you need more formatting just attach a document.
yoz-y 9y ago
If only they have decided to use something like markdown or rtf at the time. (Some mail clients do support it). IMO the problem with choosing HTML is that then it becomes tempting to embed a complete HTML rendering engine and try blacklisting elements or restricting it. This opens up a door for vulnerabilities. If e-mail used some format which only does formatting then it would be easier to avoid security problems.
- petepete 9y ago
  A simple Markdown dialect would have been perfect, but Markdown's ability to embed HTML would just lead to abuse. For emails, headings, quotes, code blocks, hyperlinks, images and bold/italic/strikethrough is surely enough. Perhaps tables. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed.
  - yoz-y 9y ago
    Well, the advantage is that since e-mail is a plain text medium, it could be "forced" if clients started supporting it. And it would require zero hacks like this AMP thing and would also be 100% retro compatible if a markup language with sensible plain text legibility were chosen.
    - Spivak 9y ago
      Up to your ability to modify the client there's absolutely nothing that prevents you from sending a multipart email with text/markdown as one of the options. Shoudln't break any existing email clients. Obviously very few clients will be able to read it, or even acknowledge that it exists but it's something. Maybe someone on the other end will appreciate it.

lifty 9y ago

You say "all in one mail server(SMTP & web & IMAP) binary". Any chance that code is open source or available somewhere online? I think we are sorely missing some more integrated e-mail solutions that are easy to manage.

e12e 9y ago
Jmap lives (a little unfortunately IMNHO) as a Perl proxy for imap, mainly. I've thought about trying to put a jmap face on the postgres schema of dbmail.org - but so far it's just an idea. And the next idea is that if jmap is so great, why no go straight for "graphql mail" on top of a postgres schema with solid lmtp/smtp support...
sfilargi 9y ago
Yes, I do plan to make the source available as soon as it is something more than a toy and can be used by someone else other than me.

jonathanstrange 9y ago

I agree 100%. All of this fancy stuff is used to 99% percent for marketing, and that seems to be about the only thing Google cares about. There is no need for dynamic email content at all, on the contrary, it will significantly impede the work flow of many people. Google is one of the most destructive forces on the web for at least the past 10 years or so, they have extinguished Usenet and even try to replace http with their own proprietary technology. I have a feeling that their embrace & extinguish strategy will also work this time. Then again, I can't be the only one who marks all those newsletters and company info mails as spam and aggressively filters them out. No Facebook, Google, Apple, or other web site "news" reaches my eyes unless I want to.