Why HTML in E-Mail Is a Bad Idea
I receive email frequently on a piece I wrote many years ago, Why HTML in E-Mail is a Bad Idea. It was written before the days of weblogs, so that page doesn’t allow comments. I no longer have a whole lot of interest in the topic and don’t feel like keeping the page updated, so thought it might make sense to create a page here so the public could leave comments on the topic — agreement / disagreement, tips and tricks, etc. Feel free to leave your comments on the above-linked piece here.
Filed under: Geek @ 11:17 pm
September 19th, 2006 at 1:31 am
My Collegues use Outlook; they use Word. They have Outlook use Word as a Composing Client for Outlook Email.
They wonder why their Email never looks the way it’s supposed to.
My Emails are always sent in Plain Text; I use Lucida Console as my font.
Corporate Bulletins arrive as Word Documents in Reader View. All Documentary Correspondence back to Corporate takes the form of PDF documents.
Whenever someone complains to me about Word not working properly; I start up Publisher for them. 10 out of 10 times, they’re trying to do page layout.
Hopefully some of these idiots will realise that you should use the right tool for the right job. Word is the wrong tool for most jobs.
September 19th, 2006 at 3:07 am
I don’t think “Word sucks” and “HTML e-mail is bad” are the same thing.
It’s not hard at all to find a list of good things about HTML-formatted e-mail. The ability to use italics and boldface type, for starters. Or the ability to include pictures in-line instead of having to attach them separately.
Some of the advantages of HTML-based mail are purely cosmetic, like the ability to send e-mails on a company letterhead. But I don’t understand why some folks disparage those things. We don’t use Underwoods and blank sheets of typing paper for business correspondence any more. We use word processors and pre-printed letterhead. In fact, companies invest a small fortune on things like business letterhead. Extending this same capability to e-mail only makes sense.
HTML is a document-markup format. The fact that some generators don’t produce very good HTML doesn’t mean that HTML itself is a bad idea. (Well, okay, you could make the argument that HTML is in fact a pretty rotten implementation, but what with XHTML and whatnot, at least they’re working on improving it.)
September 19th, 2006 at 3:33 am
We don’t use Underwoods and blank sheets of typing paper for business correspondence any more
We also tend not to care about the color of the shirt the person on the other end of a phone call is wearing. Content will always win out over decoration.
I view all e-mail as text. Your HTML will never display. If you’re planning on your undelrines and italics and text formatting to add to your message, it won’t on my machine. All your formatting goes *poof*.
Pretty letterhead and fun text formatting and nifty font selections do not outweigh the incredible security problems that have been created by HTML e-mail.
It’s like arguing, “We don’t use spears any more, so why should anyone in this advanced day and age not have their own surface-to-air missile? Who cares if they have no idea how to use it or its implications on the world at large? It’s COOL!”
September 19th, 2006 at 3:46 am
I never use HTML in my e-mails. Especially when I’m chatting with folks in PGPNET, because HTML plus PGP equals a complete mess.
September 19th, 2006 at 4:17 am
I actually switched recently and am using HTML mail. IMO, mailers have become sufficiently advanced to handle multipart messages, so the recipient can view the plaintext part if that’s their preference. If their mailer can’t handle multipart messages, they are often advanced users who have their .mailcap set up to strip out the HTML.
Mneptok: I think it’s wonderful that you strip out the HTML from the mail you receive, but what does that have to do with me sending it? For every nerdy correspondent I have who complains about HTML mail, I have 100 who either prefer HTML mail or could care less.
The “security problems” are a red herring, imho. Saying that a tool can be abused is like banning all kitchen knives because occasionally a knife is used for a mugging. I have scripting disabled in my mailers, so should you. If you don’t, you likely don’t give a shit about security, and there are 1000 other vectors for badness into your computer.
September 19th, 2006 at 6:23 am
HTML emails are almost always eeeeeevil! (he said in his best Grandpa Simpson voice)
And what’s wrong with typewriters ? I just bought a brand new Olivetti manual at 70% off from a place that’s going out of business. Just the ticket for one-off envelopes or those pesky “fill in the blanks” forms you still get from gov’t or business. Manual typewriters gots soul :)
September 19th, 2006 at 9:21 pm
Stylized communications peaked with the smoke signal. We’re a civilization in decline.
November 6th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
For all you luddites out there decrying HTML e-mail, perhaps you’d argue that we should go back to the days of command-line interfaces and other text-only media. I know you probably think it’s retro-chique to whine about HTML email and yet you crave CSS over *plain* HTML pages (you know, black text on a gray background with blue hypertext links). Bunch of hypocrites.
And to the loser, mneptok, who thinks “content will always win out over decoration”: please never work for an ad agency…or anyone else who sells/markets anything…oh yeah, and forget about things like professional appearance, style, etc. No wait, you have. The ignorance of your statement is staggering. (Hint: you can have substance *AND* style…they’re not mutually exclusive).
December 24th, 2006 at 7:28 am
I recently found out that in Apple Mail (version 2.1) the “plain text” option does include html although. The only difference to “formated text” seems to be that the formating options are hidden.
Is there a work around to create “really plain” mails?
December 28th, 2006 at 10:11 am
Hi Stephan -
I just did a quick test and don’t see any evidence of Mail.app sending multipart email when set to plain text mode. I’m getting “really plain.” What are you seeing?
January 12th, 2007 at 9:57 am
I just have to say thank you for the hilarious analogies. How about “if you aunt had balls she’d be your uncle”. There is nothing wrong with HTML formatted email itself.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
HTML in email just goes to show that entropy is ever increasing. just like so many things in the world today, “public policy” makes “the law” - regardless of what is intelligent or proper. i should remind people that the average IQ is 100, and that’s pretty stupid - but that is what backs the policies of companies like Microsoft/Apple who profit off morons. it comes down to the 98% of IQ’s less than 135 versus the 2% with IQ’s over 135. the 2% most always lose. it’s like comparing people that listen to 9V AM Radios to sports-morons with 10ft HDTV sets. the ones with the glitter are the morons with the empty heads. [damn - i was in my Lynx text browser, and then came upon this damn "enter the code that you see in the image" box - gdammit!]
April 16th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Hey chad, IQ is nothing, EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE is everithing ;)
This “HTML in e-mail” discussion is like the never ending “Windows vs Linux” one.
July 5th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
wake up you guys! big companies like e-bay, microsoft, doubleclick, etc, all use secret web bugs in your html emails to monitor, track, and stalk your every surf and browse. they then harvest your cookies from your pc and get all your personal preferences, and who knows, financial, personal info…. if that’s not enough to invade your privacy, there’s the lovely malware and phishing to steal your identity. good luck folks, i’m going back to plain text, receiving and sending!
July 11th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
I can agree with monitor and track but you’re a little off with the stalking, harvesting cookies, personal preferences, financial, personal info. They just can’t do that unless they get something running on your comp and html email can’t do that.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:31 am
they actually only see if you’ve read their email (with external images on). Also, even some individuals do this.
September 30th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
I received an HTML email last week from Microsoft and now I cant get an erection. It should be banned.
jonty :(
October 29th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Damn! I knew it was them!
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:34 am
We managed to add styles to e-mail years before HTML mailers existed.
_underline_
*bold*
/italic/
And the idea of having a link disguised as _click here_ has led to vast amount of compromised PC’s, and the web with a reputation for being unsafe.
We spent years trying to educate the noobs about why HTML was bad in e-mails, and we still lost the battle.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:34 am
…which are so nicely supported on Thunderbird.
February 12th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Much of this discussion misses the point. It’s not about whether HTML is “a good thing” in some absolute sense. HTML is a fine technology… but using all the technology you’ve got is not always the right thing to do.
In particular, while there are plenty of reasons for _sending_ HTML email, there are also plenty of good reasons for not allowing your email client to _receive_ it. HTML is used extensively by spammers, or for phishing attacks, or concealing malicious payloads. Or by m0r0ns to dress up messages that I probably don’t want to read regardless of what font they’re in. TEXT is used to communicate information… which is what I use my email client for. If I can filter out the fancy CrAp, my email is just that much better.
Sure, I love nice layouts and pretty pictures as much as the next person But when I want all that formatting, I can easily find a way to view it in my browser, which has plenty of tools for controlling it, storing it, manipulating it. For things like newsletters, RSS is perfect… the right tool for the job. But it makes great sense to keep one channel that is deliberately restricted to text only.
The reason we don’t want HTML in email is the same reason we don’t have flying cars, or dine every night with sporks.
March 10th, 2008 at 7:54 am
I want my flying car. Anyway, you seem to be in the minority since everyone wants a nice looking HTML email. My company uses them to send out evaluation reports. We only send email to our clients. Yes it’s a little more difficult to do. Yes, we send out a multipart with a plain text version also. It just looks nice. I am an avid backpacker and I enjoy getting REI emails in HTML format in my inbox. I also get weekly wine tasting menus from the local wine shop that I go to every once in a while in an HTML email. You’re talking about everything you don’t want to receive in the first place. That’s not the fault of the HTML email itself.
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:23 am
I don’t read e-mail, which contain HTML. Only pure text - that’s my rule!
April 29th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Recently, I’ve converted to sending HTML email,
whenever I’m trying to explain something complicated.
The only things I use it for is indenting lines of text,
which entails also setting the font and font size
so that the formatting comes out as expected.
I use a type semantic formatting
that is based on indenting individual lines
and breaking them at semantically meaningful points. This makes the text much easier to read.
Most of these problems, esp. the security problems, could be obviated by defining a limited subset of HTML commands that an email client will accept, most “rich text” type of elements. Of course, images and scripts would not be included.
Someone should write a TB extension for this.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
but if someone just “writes a TB extension”, it won’t become a standard.
I think plaintext is enough for email. People used email long before HTML. To read my @rootshell.be email, I use “mail” (the Unix command), which, as a console program, obviously doesn’t support HTML. (Ever tried browsing the web with “telnet google.com 80″?) For Gmail (and rootshell, if it still has unread emails), I use Thunderbird set to plaintext mode, which ignores any HTML content. Occasionally some moron (hint: Comcast) sends me an email with empty (but existing) text/plain part, causing TB to display an empty message. In this case, I switch to “simple HTML”, which ignores all formatting except {b}old, {i}talic, {small} and such. So where you see a paragraph nicely indented to 12340 pt, I only see {p style=”text-indent: 3pt;”} - that is, if I’m in “view source” mood.
^D
EOF
grawity@rootshell ~ $ logout
May 9th, 2008 at 4:37 am
You guys talking about html that’s everywhere right ?
OMG, pls dont make me laght anymore…