Do many people still have text-only e-mail?

[Stan Shmenge]

Still working on my friend's web page, and am working on the newsletter feature.

It would save me a boatload of aggravation if I didn't have to deal with text-only emails.

Seems like most clients these days support html. And if they don't, the person should be used to getting html code in their client, so not such a bad thing there either.

Or am I missing something?

[tellyworth]

Don't roll your own email newsletter delivery service. Use an existing provider - they'll deal with this, plus a bunch of other problems you haven't yet encountered. I can PM you a recommendation if you like.

[Floater]

Yes you are: Why you shouldn't use HTML email...

Honestly, I just hate html e-mails.

[constanze]

My provider (GMX) can certainly handle HTML-Mails; but for security reasons, I prefer text mails. Sure, HTML mails look all shiny and have graphics and stuff and cool!

But they can contain hidden code that executes on the PC, without even the user noticing. Pure text Emails can't do that, so they are recommended for safety reasons.

If you or your client is not able to bring across his message in text only, then simply provide a link in the text email to your site and show the cool graphics and java there.

[Stan Shmenge]

Originally Posted by tellyworth

Don't roll your own email newsletter delivery service. Use an existing provider - they'll deal with this, plus a bunch of other problems you haven't yet encountered. I can PM you a recommendation if you like.

Sure, but I am not expecting to have thousands of even hundreds of subscribers.

Right now, I just want to send out a confirmation e-mail that has a hyperlink back to the confirmation page so the user can enter a randomly generated confirmation code to activate their subscription. Using a 3rd party seems like overkill and another layer of complexity.

I already have the PHP working and a MySQL database set up to handle the list.

[Chronos]

Right now, I just want to send out a confirmation e-mail that has a hyperlink back to the confirmation page so the user can enter a randomly generated confirmation code to activate their subscription. Using a 3rd party seems like overkill and another layer of complexity.

Just put in the URL itself. HTML e-mail clients will automatically turn it into a link, and everyone else can copy and paste it manually.

[tellyworth]

Originally Posted by Stan Shmenge

Sure, but I am not expecting to have thousands of even hundreds of subscribers.

All the more reason to use something out-of-the-box. The technical and administrative problems you'll encounter are mostly the same regardless of the number of subscribers.

[Reply]

Originally Posted by Stan Shmenge

Sure, but I am not expecting to have thousands of even hundreds of subscribers.

Right now, I just want to send out a confirmation e-mail that has a hyperlink back to the confirmation page so the user can enter a randomly generated confirmation code to activate their subscription. Using a 3rd party seems like overkill and another layer of complexity.

I already have the PHP working and a MySQL database set up to handle the list.

Why do you need an HTML version, then?

[Stan Shmenge]

Originally Posted by Reply

Why do you need an HTML version, then?

Well, we would like to send graphics with the newsletter.

[Lynn Bodoni]

Originally Posted by Floater

Yes you are: Why you shouldn't use HTML email...

Honestly, I just hate html e-mails.

Originally Posted by Stan Shmenge

Well, we would like to send graphics with the newsletter.

Why? Why must EVERY email have graphics in it? I hate html emails, and always choose not to have them. Send a damned link if you have pretty pictures that everyone MUST look at. More is NOT better. Ever seen some of the entries in the "bad webpage design" contests? What do they all have in common? More html than you can shake a stick at.

If the newsletter is good, then it doesn't need shiny flashing lights. And if it's bad, no amount of graphics will save it.

[Heracles]

You may not have chosen the most representative forum to determine whether rich e-mail is desired by average folk. Most under-40 people I know wouldn't read a plain-text newsletter, but would probably tolerate a plain-text e-mail inviting them to visit an updated Web page or blog.

If you really want the e-mail to contain, uh, content, I say give people a choice, or use a delivery service that does.

[Wheeljack]

Whenever I get an email with HTML, my client displays it as text unless I click the little button that tells it not to.

I never do.

[psychonaut]

It's possible to send e-mail which contains both a plain text and HTML version. Use software configured to send such mails, and they will be displayed for each user in their preferred format automatically. If you send me an HTML-only e-mail, or an e-mail which contains content in the HTML version but a blank text version (or a text version which simply says "Your client cannot view this message."), I will delete it, and possibly report it to SpamCop as unsolicited bulk e-mail. I know that many people do likewise.

[Typo Knig]

Piling on: let your subcribers choose the preferred email format (plain text versus html). I hate html only email more than Roger Ebert hated the movie North. IMNAAHO html email is the idea with the worst computer security implications ever.

[Ruminator]

Originally Posted by Stan Shmenge

Seems like most clients these days support html. And if they don't, the person should be used to getting html code in their client, so not such a bad thing there either.

But sometimes it has nothing to do with the HTML capabilities of the client. On many corporate email systems, they strip all incoming HTML out before it ever reaches the employees' inboxes. This is done for security purposes. All that effort of HTML graphics formatting went to the digital trash bin.

Or am I missing something?

You and your friend seem to be missing the fact that many people don't like HTML emails.

[UncleRojelio]

HTML Emails

WTF? Really?!?!?!?

... sorry, wrong thread.

[jjimm]

Not a shill: I would like to recommend VerticalResponse as a provider. You don't need a contract - they charge per email sent. They also provide a form so people can sign up to receive the mail, which you can plop on the website. They're cheap, easy to use, and the reporting features are excellent.

VR (and competing products) prompts you to create an HTML and plain text version of the email, and it will deliver the appropriate one providing the recipient mailserver expresses a preference.

As a general rule, any images in an HTML email should merely support the text. That way if the images don't get shown, the email still makes sense and gets its message across.

I too agree that the SDMB, being full of geek types, is unlikely to give you a true representation of HTML email popularity. From the sender's side, HTML email is better because it allows you to track open rates of the email.

[stpauler]

Another reason, my smartphone (Hero HTC) doesn't like em at all in the Gmail and Yahoo apps.

[Hari Seldon]

I use text-only email that runs on a Linux computer in my office. Send me a real link and I can click on it. Send me a hidden link and I discard the email unread since there is nothing else I can do. Sometime it is a pain. Attach a pdf or other file and I first have to save it on the Linux machine and then ftp it to my home computer. I will do that only if you give me a convincing reason to.

Bottom line: I have never caught a virus or other malware. The trade-off seems worth it.

[WarmNPrickly]

Originally Posted by Ruminator

You and your friend seem to be missing the fact that many people don't like HTML emails.

+1

[GuanoLad]

I used to have to create an HTML email newsletter (who knows, perhaps some of you have even received it - you'll know who you are), but even though it was deliberately done for people who wanted the visuals, so our target audience were HTML viewers by default, it still sucked.

Each email client recognised different forms of HTML. Some wouldn't display unless it had certain headers, some would strip out those headers, each making the page display differently. And you could only use inline CSS.

In the end, we went with the simplest we could that still looked good, which I think was an elegant design, but it was easily messed up if you made even one tiny mistake.

[thelabdude]

I am using KMail, Debian, KDE, which will not compose in HTML. Incoming HTML messages are first displayed as a mess with with all the formatting junk displayed as text. There is a box to click to display in the original format.

I had clung to NS 4.X for email as long as I could. I loved its powerful, friendly, non MS like spell check. When I switched to the Debian OS, I had a choice of several email programs. I finally went with KMail. It lacks some features of the old NS spell check, but has some stuff to make up for it.

I seldom miss composing in HTML. When I used NS, I usually used the text mode. NS did display both text and HTML. Sometimes HTML in eyestraining small font. If you are sending an all text email, I see no reason to send it in HTML, or worse yet as a .docx attachment. For now, I am returning them unread requesting a different format. I did not rush out and buy Windows 7 and feel no obligation to accommodate those that did.

My one sister is one of the few people sending me HMTL emails. I think I will email her son with the one link above and suggest he turns the HTML off on his mother's computer. She will never miss it.

Oh, I get emails from a few people that KMail puts the formatting garbage in a winmail.dat attachment.

[Chronos]

Quoth jjimm:

As a general rule, any images in an HTML email should merely support the text. That way if the images don't get shown, the email still makes sense and gets its message across.

This is also a good general rule for webpages: Let the content determine the format. If your content is essays, then your web page should display correctly even in something ancient like Lynx, or another imageless browser (which are a lot more common than you think). If your content is the pictures you took over summer vacation, then obviously it's not going to work with an imageless browser, but your page should still not require Flash or Java(script). If your content is browser-based games, then it's reasonable to require Flash and/or Java. In any case, you can add higher levels of fanciness, but make sure that it's only supplemental, and that the main content still works without it.

[Hermitian]

I am going to be the voice in the wilderness on this one and say that I think plain text email sucks.

When I use html email, that doesn’t mean it is full of junk borders, backgrounds, and pictures.

For example, when I get an email that has a lot of questions, I put my response to each question after each of their questions. Usually this is done by changing the color of my response to blue or green so they can distinguish my response from their text. If you have html off, all the text looks the same and so it just looks like a big jumble.

Have you never wanted to use different fonts? Underline? Bold? Colors? In more complicated email communication, this can make things easier (i.e. "Please refer to the red paragraph below" when there are many paragraphs and you are highlighting one in particular).

I say screw plain text. This is the 21st century, get with the program.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Hermitian

Have you never wanted to use different fonts? Underline? Bold? Colors?

Nope. Not in an E-mail message.

[Ruminator]

Originally Posted by Hermitian

I am going to be the voice in the wilderness on this one and say that I think plain text email sucks.

...
Have you never wanted to use different fonts? Underline? Bold? Colors? In more complicated email communication, this can make things easier (i.e. "Please refer to the red paragraph below" when there are many paragraphs and you are highlighting one in particular).

I say screw plain text. This is the 21st century, get with the program.

You are mixing up the capabilities of technology with social expectations of interaction.

Yes, when I'm working in the office, all my colleages use Microsoft Outlook to its fullest and all internal emails make heavy use of fonts, graphics, arrows annotating screenshots, etc. No plain HTML here.

However, Stan Shmenge wants to send out emails to a non peer group audience (customers?). This is a different type of social circle. In this case, we interact at arms length. It is irrelevant what the current modern capabilities of HTML email clients are. Many folks prefer not to use it in that fashion. When I get my car is due for an oil change, it's ok for the Toyota dealership to send me a notification email. However, that email doesn't need to be loud obnoxious HTML. Work colleagues yes, but car dealership no.

Likewise, videophones (and webcams) as a technology have been around for more than a decade but most people don't want to converse with strangers like that. It's not a technology barrier and we're not luddites. Maybe I'm ok with using videophones talking to my parents while they see me in my pajamas but I don't want to talk to a telemarketer like that. I don't care if they come out with 3D holographic videophones next year -- I still don't want to talk to telemarketers that way.

[Hermitian]

Originally Posted by Ruminator

You are mixing up the capabilities of technology with social expectations of interaction.

Yes, when I'm working in the office, all my colleages use Microsoft Outlook to its fullest and all internal emails make heavy use of fonts, graphics, arrows annotating screenshots, etc. No plain HTML here.

However, Stan Shmenge wants to send out emails to a non peer group audience (customers?). This is a different type of social circle. In this case, we interact at arms length. It is irrelevant what the current modern capabilities of HTML email clients are. Many folks prefer not to use it in that fashion. When I get my car is due for an oil change, it's ok for the Toyota dealership to send me a notification email. However, that email doesn't need to be loud obnoxious HTML. Work colleagues yes, but car dealership no.

Likewise, videophones (and webcams) as a technology have been around for more than a decade but most people don't want to converse with strangers like that. It's not a technology barrier and we're not luddites. Maybe I'm ok with using videophones talking to my parents while they see me in my pajamas but I don't want to talk to a telemarketer like that. I don't care if they come out with 3D holographic videophones next year -- I still don't want to talk to telemarketers that way.

Yes, I see your point, and it is a good one, but I still see the same assumption in your post:"loud obnoxious HTML." There is nothing about HTML that is loud and obnoxious. To me, that is confusing a style and a technology.

How about just not sending loud and obnoxious emails whether it is in html or not? If you use html and you want to underline a word, go for it because now you can do that.

Anyway, I am going to bow out of this one. It is obvious that most people (at least on here) don't want to recieve html emails for reasons that are up to them. I would listen to your customers.

[rbroome]

Originally Posted by Stan Shmenge

Still working on my friend's web page, and am working on the newsletter feature.

It would save me a boatload of aggravation if I didn't have to deal with text-only emails.

Seems like most clients these days support html. And if they don't, the person should be used to getting html code in their client, so not such a bad thing there either.

Or am I missing something?

first thing I do whenever I configure an email client is set the defaults to text only. I NEVER allow html emails. Or graphics. Way too dangerous. Sometimes I get emails full of html and I just shake my head, mutter noob, and pick through the message to find what is being said. annoying, but some people just like that kind of stuff and are willing to take the risk.

[lexi]

Another thing to keep in mind is some ISPs may "mark as spam" html emails, and the users will never receive them.

Use a service or install a program which will allow the user to choose their format.

Here is an open source one which has many features including allowing users to choose.
http://www.phplist.com/

[Rigamarole]

I'm not quite sure I get the hate for HTML e-mail. I know people here are really old school, but there's just no logic to it that I can see.

[Acsenray]

Did you read Floater's link? You find no logic in that?

[Rigamarole]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Did you read Floater's link? You find no logic in that?

I didn't, but now I did and it's basically a lot of fluff that is either not relevant to me (I have a very fast connection, I use Gmail which can handle anything and filters spam and potentially malicious stuff pretty damn well, I don't print most e-mails, I'm not disabled, etc.) or simply dumb ("color combinations that are horrific to the reader and give them headaches after a long day at work" - oh jeez, I don't think my fragile body could bear viewing a horrific color combination!).

There's really only one decent point on that list: mobiles. I can see how a fixed-width layout could potentially be annoying if I was reading it on my phone since I do send and receive e-mails on the go sometimes. But it's still not really a reason to get all raged up about something so insignificant.

ETA: Oh, and searchability could be an issue too. But making an HTML e-mail doesn't necessarily mean the content won't be searchable - only really if the text is an image.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Rigamarole

... it's basically a lot of fluff that is ... not relevant to me (I have a very fast connection, I use Gmail which can handle anything and filters spam and potentially malicious stuff pretty damn well, I don't print most e-mails, I'm not disabled, etc.)

Just screw the rest of them then.

[JoelUpchurch]

I don't see why the newsletter can't be sent as a PDF attachment or better yet as a link to a PDF file they can downloaded. It isn't like you have to buy Adobe Acrobat anymore. Microsoft Word can save as PDF. PDF gives you better control on the look of the newsletter anyway.

[Reply]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

I don't see why the newsletter can't be sent as a PDF attachment or better yet as a link to a PDF file they can downloaded. It isn't like you have to buy Adobe Acrobat anymore. Microsoft Word can save as PDF. PDF gives you better control on the look of the newsletter anyway.

Oh God, no, PLEASE no. If there's one thing more horrific than unnecessary HTML in emails, it's unnecessary PDF.

Slow, unwieldy, pain to view on mobile devices, a nightmare to navigate and scroll through, harder to archive and search through, prone to even more security exploits...

[Rigamarole]

Originally Posted by Reply

Oh God, no, PLEASE no. If there's one thing more horrific than unnecessary HTML in emails, it's unnecessary PDF.

Slow, unwieldy, pain to view on mobile devices, a nightmare to navigate and scroll through, harder to archive and search through, prone to even more security exploits...

I swear sometimes everybody on this board must be stuck in 1995.

[gazpacho]

I think the biggest argument against fancily formatted emails are mobile phones. More and more people are checking email on their phones. If I can't read the email on my phone it most likely gets deleted.

[gazpacho]

Originally Posted by Rigamarole

I swear sometimes everybody on this board must be stuck in 1995.

PDFs are basically trying to shoehorn the precomputer idea that the sender has full control of how the message looks. This is 2011 you have no idea the size and shape of the viewer people are using. Your message must be readable on a vast array of devices. PDFs really break this idea. Drop PDFs and move forward.

[FeAudrey]

Originally Posted by Rigamarole

I swear sometimes everybody on this board must be stuck in 1995.

It's a "Groundhog Day" thing.

Every problem that the early internet had with HTML e-mails has been resolved.

But those problems have now migrated to smartphones.


One principle has remained the same since the earliest days of advertising: If you want your message read, keep it short and simple.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by gazpacho

PDFs are basically trying to shoehorn the precomputer idea that the sender has full control of how the message looks. This is 2011 you have no idea the size and shape of the viewer people are using. Your message must be readable on a vast array of devices. PDFs really break this idea. Drop PDFs and move forward.

If a sender didn't want full control of the how the output looks why mess with a newsletter at all, instead of a RSS feed?

[psychonaut]

Originally Posted by FeAudrey

Every problem that the early internet had with HTML e-mails has been resolved.

No they haven't. See floater's link.

[psychonaut]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

I don't see why the newsletter can't be sent as a PDF attachment or better yet as a link to a PDF file they can downloaded. It isn't like you have to buy Adobe Acrobat anymore.

You have never had to buy Adobe Acrobat to view PDF files. Adobe's proprietary viewer, Adobe Reader (formerly Adobe Acrobat Reader) has always been gratis, and there have been alternative Free viewers for almost as long.

But I agree that sending large PDFs unsolicited is a bad thing. Even with today's fast connections (which I hasten to add not everyone has yet), it can still take a couple minutes to download the PDF (keep in mind that e-mail uses an inefficient encoding which increases the file size 137%) and then spam- or virus-check it. Don't get me wrong -- I love PDFs for newsletters, since they accurately reproduce the layout of the printed version, allowing me to print off my own the way the designers intended. But there's almost never a reason to send a large one by e-mail; a link will suffice.

[thelabdude]

KMail allows colors, bold, italics, and underline. It also quotes the original in green with leading > in replies. I could be obnoxious without HTML. Mostly the only thing I use is underline for book titles. I guess it must send the formatting info somehow.

Note, Open Office is free and saves as a PDF.

I have no MS softwear in my life.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

Originally Posted by FeAudrey

Every problem that the early internet had with HTML e-mails has been resolved.

Unfortunately not. I get emails all the time where someone has selected a font size or color combo that may have looked good on their screen, but is unreadable on my hi-res screen or mobile device. Plain text shows up in the font face, size, and color that *I* have chosen.

There are still many reasons to prefer plain-text emails.

[Chronos]

Quoth Rigamarole:

I swear sometimes everybody on this board must be stuck in 1995.

You mean, back in the days when people actually thought that sending out a PDF in an e-mail was a good idea?

If you really want a PDF newsletter, then what you do is you send out a plain-text e-mail with the contents of the newsletter, and then at the top of it, put in "To see a PDF version of this newsletter, go to http://www.mywebserver.com/newslette...er_may2011.pdf ". That way, anyone who actually wants to see the PDF can view it with no more effort than would be necessary if it was attached, the e-mail itself is very small, and the people who want their e-mail to just be plain text aren't bothered with it at all.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Quoth Rigamarole:You mean, back in the days when people actually thought that sending out a PDF in an e-mail was a good idea?

If you really want a PDF newsletter, then what you do is you send out a plain-text e-mail with the contents of the newsletter, and then at the top of it, put in "To see a PDF version of this newsletter, go to http://www.mywebserver.com/newslette...er_may2011.pdf ". That way, anyone who actually wants to see the PDF can view it with no more effort than would be necessary if it was attached, the e-mail itself is very small, and the people who want their e-mail to just be plain text aren't bothered with it at all.

That can work with people who are just putting in graphics as eye candy, but with a lot of stuff I do the graphics are the content and often the text is just commentary on a graph or chart I created.

The people who want all content reduced to something they can read on their smartphones are wrong. Some content is too complicated to be consumed through the pinhole they are trying to consume it through. They really need to get an iPad or at least a Kindle. Smartphones are for the Reader's Digest version of reality that you can consume while waiting for a bus.

[Chronos]

The best solution to that would still be to have the fancy version on a webpage available through a link in the e-mail, with at least a text summary of the content in the e-mail body itself.

[WarmNPrickly]

I know that 99% of the population at least has high speed Internet as an option, but those of us who live in the country do not. Satellite Internet is almost as slow as dial-up unless you pay for upgraded service, and the amount you are allowed to download is limited. We gave up our Internet service and went entirely to 3G. Reception is pretty bad for Verizon and AT&T (this is probably more due to the valley we are in.).

Extra shit in emails piss me off. I also don't care for anything beyond text. That's why I like SDMB.

[JoelUpchurch]

I would like to note that when I use gmail, it gives me the option of downloading the images or not as I chose. The actual html isn't that large if you choose not to display the images. As far as I can tell, the actual HTML is usually less than 100k.

[JoelUpchurch]

I would like to note that when I use gmail, it gives me the option of downloading the images or not as I chose. The actual html isn't that large if you choose not to display the images. As far as I can tell, the actual HTML is usually less than 100k.