# Do many people still have text-only e-mail? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 27, 2011, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-many-people-still-have-text-only-e-mail/583411 "2011-05-27T07:23:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-many-people-still-have-text-only-e-mail/583411/41 "2011-05-28T09:45:29Z")
> [@FeAudrey](#): > > Every problem that the early internet had with HTML e-mails has been resolved. No they haven’t. See **floater** ’s link. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-many-people-still-have-text-only-e-mail/583411/42 "2011-05-28T09:53:38Z")
> [@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](http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) 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. ---
**Author:** ![thelabdude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@thelabdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelabdude)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-many-people-still-have-text-only-e-mail/583411/43 "2011-05-28T11:51:45Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-many-people-still-have-text-only-e-mail/583411/44 "2011-05-28T17:43:47Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-many-people-still-have-text-only-e-mail/583411/45 "2011-05-28T18:34:52Z")
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/newsletter/organization\_newsletter\_may2011.pdf](http://www.mywebserver.com/newsletter/organization_newsletter_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. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-many-people-still-have-text-only-e-mail/583411/46 "2011-05-28T21:30:27Z")
> [@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/newsletter/organization\_newsletter\_may2011.pdf](http://www.mywebserver.com/newsletter/organization_newsletter_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. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-many-people-still-have-text-only-e-mail/583411/47 "2011-05-29T01:15:06Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![WarmNPrickly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@WarmNPrickly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WarmNPrickly)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-many-people-still-have-text-only-e-mail/583411/48 "2011-05-29T01:30:38Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-many-people-still-have-text-only-e-mail/583411/49 "2011-05-29T03:36:01Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-many-people-still-have-text-only-e-mail/583411/50 "2011-05-29T04:40:03Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-many-people-still-have-text-only-e-mail/583411/51 "2011-05-29T08:07:45Z")
> [@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. If the fancy version is quite large, yes. Otherwise a multipart e-mail might be better; not everyone reads their e-mail online. Those of us who don’t use webmail have the advantage of being able to read their e-mail in subways, trains, planes, cars, at client sites where Internet access is restricted, etc. Such advantage is negated when the e-mail is simply a link to a website with a bit of text (fancily formatted) that could just as easily have been sent in the original e-mail as a plain text version. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2011, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-many-people-still-have-text-only-e-mail/583411/52 "2011-05-31T10:53:27Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > No they haven’t. See **floater** ’s link. You mean the one that misses pretty much everything about modern HTML email? What’s the crap about security? It’s not like JavaScript or ActiveX can run from these emails anymore. It’s just a way to get rich content and throw in some links. All the images are attachments or external, and you can, gosh, set your email to not download them. All HTML should be accessible by default, so that shouldn’t be a problem. All you have left are things that are general problems with HTML–all of which a skilled user wouldn’t use. The argument that since stupid people do something wrong so everyone should be forbidden–that is stupid. And if you put all HTML email in the trash, you are throwing away any email from a webmail provider. They all communicate with HTML by default. They just happen to also include a text version. And, guess what? Spammers are smart enough to do that, too. Heck, the idea that spam is usually HTML is silly. It’s usually text with a URL, in my experience. I have plenty of newsletters that I allow to show images. Most people type the way we do on this messageboard, and the few that don’t either get converted to text or trashed. But I will not throw out HTML. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2011, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-many-people-still-have-text-only-e-mail/583411/53 "2011-05-31T11:57:21Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > What’s the crap about security? It’s not like JavaScript or ActiveX can run from these emails anymore. Whether or not e-mail JavaScript or ActiveX is executed depends on the mail client. (Just because you’ve updated your version to something more recent, or disabled scripts in your settings, doesn’t mean that everyone else has.) But you don’t need JavaScript or ActiveX to exploit security holes. Buffer overruns and such like continue to be discovered occasionally in HTML and image rendering libraries. Cross-site scripting and other security exploits that rely in part on social engineering are easier to accomplish with HTML e-mail. > [@](#): > > Heck, the idea that spam is usually HTML is silly. It’s usually text with a URL, in my experience. It’s usually HTML in my experience. Here are some stats from my spam folder, which holds all spam I received in the past month: ```auto [psy@sable:~/Mail/.Spam.directory/reported spam/cur]$ ls|wc -l 1986 [psy@sable:~/Mail/.Spam.directory/reported spam/cur]$ fgrep -m1 'Content-Type: text/html' *|wc -l 1224 ``` I can make no claim that the spam I receive is representative of the spam that people receive generally. Then again, neither can you, but at least I’ve provided some statistical evidence for my experience. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-many-people-still-have-text-only-e-mail/583411/54 "2011-06-06T16:40:24Z")
> [@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. Are you serious? Most email programs have a feature that allow quoted text, so when replying to an email in text, it looks like this \>question your answer \>information your comment and so on. No need for colours. > [@](#): > > I say screw plain text. This is the 21st century, get with the program. Yes, and in this 21st century, the “program” is that - there is a growing security problem, because more and more hackers are exploiting holes - there is an overflow of information, so design should be simple to let the information stand on its own. Overflowing design that comes first because it’s possible, and content being added later, is what people should not do. - there is no monolithic culture, so a provider should accomodate all levels of browsers and OS. The easiest way to do this is the lowest common demoninator, which means text. There are also disabled people to think of, whose screen reader can cope with text better than with flashy graphic stuff; people who use mobile devices, or text-only connections for speed or low bandwith, etc. Requiring people to use the latest coolest software, hardware and broadband just because your company does means shutting out a lot of people. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-many-people-still-have-text-only-e-mail/583411/55 "2011-06-06T16:46:45Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > 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. Are we talking about company emails to its customers, or sending special emails to your colleagues? Because that’s very different things. > [@](#): > > 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. So you are going to buy and gift a Kindle to every customer so that they can receive your graphics? Because otherwise it’s kind of assholish and short-sighted for a company to demand a certain equipment of its customers. It’s also not a good sign for the sender if they are not able to express their issue without graphics, unless it’s a highly specific topic about how to wire a 21-pin plug or the mating habits of fruit flies. Even then, you can put the summary in the text email and attach the graph/ chart/ image seperatly or as link. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-many-people-still-have-text-only-e-mail/583411/56 "2011-06-06T16:52:44Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > You mean the one that misses pretty much everything about modern HTML email? > > What’s the crap about security? It’s not like JavaScript or ActiveX can run from these emails anymore. It’s just a way to get rich content and throw in some links. All the images are attachments or external, and you can, gosh, set your email to not download them. If you don’t know about modern security problems with HTML mail, then you are missing the security problems. A problem not mentioned so far is privacy rights, probably because they don’t exist in US right. Still they are a concern for individuals, who don’t want invisible graphics (1 pixel big) that contain a link to announce to the sender that the email has been opened. Not everybody wants their habits to be tracked. (It’s also employed by spammers to verify that a random email adress is active). > [@](#): > > All HTML should be accessible by default, so that shouldn’t be a problem. So what about people with slow connections, text-only clients, disabled people? Out of luck? > [@](#): > > All you have left are things that are general problems with HTML–all of which a skilled user wouldn’t use. The argument that since stupid people do something wrong so everyone should be forbidden–that is stupid. Nobody said it’s forbidden. The OP wanted to know and so the Dopers told him the many reasons against HTML emails. He is free to ignore that and go ahead and send shitty HTML mails, he will only annoy his customers and maybe loose some, but not end in jail. And the issues people have with HTML-mails, which the various posts adress, are not based on being an unskilled user. Rather, the security problems are based on being knowledgeable enough to know on how many fronts hackers are trying to break in. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-many-people-still-have-text-only-e-mail/583411/57 "2011-06-06T18:55:36Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > Are we talking about company emails to its customers, or sending special emails to your colleagues? Because that’s very different things. That isn’t addressed in this topics. A newsletter might be sent sent to either, although it would imply that they subscribed to the newsletter. > [@constanze](#): > > So you are going to buy and gift a Kindle to every customer so that they can receive your graphics? Because otherwise it’s kind of assholish and short-sighted for a company to demand a certain equipment of its customers. [quote=“constanze, post:55, topic:583411”] No, I would suggest that people don’t have to read every email they get on the bus or in the subway. Gmail gives you the option to download or not download the the graphical elements in an email. They can easily defer reading the email until they are using their laptop or desktop. > [@constanze](#): > > It’s also not a good sign for the sender if they are not able to express their issue without graphics, unless it’s a highly specific topic about how to wire a 21-pin plug or the mating habits of fruit flies. [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-b0M4-i70pcI/TebHlHI7uJI/AAAAAAAAEBU/yg8RiK5B5SQ/s1600/Fullscreen%2Bcapture%2B612011%2B64029%2BPM.bmp.jpg](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-b0M4-i70pcI/TebHlHI7uJI/AAAAAAAAEBU/yg8RiK5B5SQ/s1600/Fullscreen%2Bcapture%2B612011%2B64029%2BPM.bmp.jpg) I put this graph in my blog last week. How would you describe in words? ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-many-people-still-have-text-only-e-mail/583411/58 "2011-06-06T19:27:53Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > That isn’t addressed in this topics. A newsletter might be sent sent to either, although it would imply that they subscribed to the newsletter. Yes, it is. Ruminator gives an excellent example of both types in post #26. > [@](#): > > No, I would suggest that people don’t have to read every email they get on the bus or in the subway. Gmail gives you the option to download or not download the the graphical elements in an email. They can easily defer reading the email until they are using their laptop or desktop. You want them to touch an email newsletter twice? Why? You still haven’t adressed what to do with all the other folks. > [@](#): > > [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-b0M4-i70pcI/TebHlHI7uJI/AAAAAAAAEBU/yg8RiK5B5SQ/s1600/Fullscreen%2Bcapture%2B612011%2B64029%2BPM.bmp.jpg](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-b0M4-i70pcI/TebHlHI7uJI/AAAAAAAAEBU/yg8RiK5B5SQ/s1600/Fullscreen%2Bcapture%2B612011%2B64029%2BPM.bmp.jpg) > > I put this graph in my blog last week. How would you describe in words? First, that graph is a very bad example. A graph of data - which I presume this is, unless you invented the numbers to illustrate something - should be properly labelled to be clear even if taken from the article; this graph doesn’t explain what the data points are or what relationship is portrayed - average income over months? Average volume of glaciers melting? What? Second, we are talking about e-mail newsletters, not blogs. Blogs are an entirely different animal, so please don’t mix apples and pears. Third, if you have that select an audience to send that specialized a graph, then you probably know not only the 20 members of your email group, but also their technical capabilities. This is similar to Ruminators point about intra-office Emails; but completly different from a company sending emails to customers. Again, a company can choose to be all spiffy, or all technical with huge information in a single newsletter. If they cater to a very specialized small group, it can even work; one way to test this would be to list two options when signing up, for a simple text-email containing the link to the webpage, and the full HTML email containing the graphics, and see how the customers decide. If 100% of the customers vote for HTML, then it’s the right option for that specific case. But under normal circumstances, you cater to the lowest denominator to make sure to include everybody. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-many-people-still-have-text-only-e-mail/583411/59 "2011-06-06T19:47:41Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > No, I would suggest that people don’t have to read every email they get on the bus or in the subway. … > > They can easily defer reading the email until they are using their laptop or desktop. So are you going to tell your customers which messages they should read on a smartphone, and which ones they should read on a laptop? Are you going to tell them exactly what devices they should buy in the first place? > [@](#): > > Gmail gives you the option to download or not download the the graphical elements in an email. Ah, you’re also going to tell them what kind of E-mail service to use. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-many-people-still-have-text-only-e-mail/583411/60 "2011-06-06T20:39:14Z")
> [@](#): > > I put this graph in my blog last week. How would you describe in words? Aside from fluctuations on a scale of ~5 years, trends for GIS, HAD, RSS, and UAH have been steadily climbing, increasing by ~40 since 1979 (see link for graph). I could do a lot better than that, of course, if I had any clue what that graph meant. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-many-people-still-have-text-only-e-mail/583411.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-many-people-still-have-text-only-e-mail/583411.md?page=4)