(as)  [sysadmin] [blog]

User Tools

Site Tools



This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
html-mail-vs-plain-text [2017-10-29 23:28]
andreas + reference to Bratus S et al 2017, - AskLeo reference
html-mail-vs-plain-text [2018-06-28 21:25] (current)
andreas + Hanno Böck: [Efail: HTML Mails have no Security Concept and are to blame]
Line 1: Line 1:
 +Notes on Plain Text vs. HTML Mail
 +## Contra HTML mail
 +* Ecologically expensive due to increased size of messages
 +* High complexity
 +  * Harder to develop, hence more expensive
 +  * Handling more likely to break (e.g.
 +    [Kaputte Zitate im Plain-Text von Gmail])
 +  * Less transparent;​ errors are harder to debug (for users _and_ developers)
 +  * Higher hurdle for first time users (e.g. for composing newsletters)
 +* Security hazards (cf. security bug fixes of main mail programs such
 +  as [Security Advisories for Thunderbird];​ cf. [Efail: HTML Mails have no Security Concept and are to blame])
 +* Privacy hazards (e.g. HTML is used to track users)
 +* Some automated systems (e.g. mailing lists) do not accept HTML and will
 +  reject messages, or use only the alternative plain text part, or convert
 +  the HTML potentially causing formatting issues.
 +* Requires HTML aware software
 +* Double effort (HTML _and_ text need to be formatted and checked)
 +* Little guarantee that HTML will be shown as intended
 +* More distractions (e.g. font selectors, emoji buttons)
 +* Harder to write (formatting takes more time)
 +* "​[Angry fruit salad]":​ Every user chooses a different font in a different
 +  color and different size.
 +## Pro HTML mail
 +* Ability to format and style the message content
 +* Ability to create "​rich"​ content (graphs, tables, ...)
 +* Ability to use semantic markup (e.g. to mark text as preformatted)
 +## Contra plain text mail
 +* Text wrapping issues if lines are hard-wrapped (not format=flowed)
 +  (e.g. on mobile devices with small screens)
 +* Text formatted for fixed width fonts might get distorted
 +* Some content is better sent as attachment (e.g. illustrations)
 +## Pro plain text mail
 +* Easy, small, ecologically friendly (compared to HTML mail)
 +* Text is shown by all devices and programs
 +* Accessibility as good as it gets
 +## Criteria to consider
 +* False positive spam: It is unclear whether HTML mails are more likely to be falsely categorized as spam.
 +* Accessibility:​ It is unclear whether HTML mails that include alternative plain text parts are less accessible, for instance for text to speech conversion.
 +## References
 +* Wikipedia:
 +  [HTML email](https://​en.wikipedia.org/​wiki/​HTML_email "​Accessed 2017-10-11"​)
 +* Hanno Böck: [Efail: HTML Mails have no Security Concept and are to blame]
 +* Jason Rodriguez: [HTML Email and Accessibility | CSS-Tricks](https://​css-tricks.com/​html-email-accessibility/​ "​Accessed 2017-11-22"​) Recommended,​ extensive article published 2017-11-22.
 +* LUGA.at thread "Plain Text vs. HTML-Mails"​
 +  [October](http://​www.luga.at/​mailing-lists/​luga/​2017/​10/​threads.html#​00041 "​Accessed 2017-11-05"​) +
 +  [November](http://​www.luga.at/​mailing-lists/​luga/​2017/​11/​threads.html#​00003 "​Accessed 2017-11-05"​) 2017.
 +* Niti Shah (HubSpot Marketing):
 +  [Plain Text vs. HTML Emails: Which Is Better? [New Data]](https://​blog.hubspot.com/​marketing/​plain-text-vs-html-emails-data "​Accessed 2017-10-29"​)
 +  Originally published 2015-07-27, updated 2017-10-29.
 +* Jonathan Corbet (LWN.net):
 +  [The trouble with text-only email](https://​lwn.net/​Articles/​735973/​ "​Accessed 2017-11-04"​)
 +  Published 2017-10-12. With many interesting [comments](https://​lwn.net/​Articles/​735973/#​Comments)
 +* Bratus S, Shubina A:
 +  [The only safe email is text-only email](https://​theconversation.com/​the-only-safe-email-is-text-only-email-81434 "​Accessed 2017-10-29"​).
 +  The Conversation,​ 2017-09-11. Also available from 
 +  [Scientific American](https://​www.scientificamerican.com/​article/​the-only-safe-e-mail-is-text-only-e-mail/​ "​Accessed 2017-10-29"​).
 +* mkln.org:
 +  [Wie man E-Mails schreibt](https://​mkln.org/​2007/​02/​wie-man-emails-schreibt/​ "​Accessed 2017-11-04"​)
 +  Published 2017-02-24.
 +* Greg Kogan:
 +  [Don't Design Your Emails](https://​www.gkogan.co/​blog/​dont-design-emails/​ "​Accessed 2017-11-04"​)
 +  Published 2016-06-28.
 +* AWeber Email Marketing:
 +  [Plain Text vs HTML Email: What Reaches the Inbox in 2014?​](https://​blog.aweber.com/​email-marketing/​plain-text-vs-html-email-2014.htm "​Accessed 2017-10-11"​)
 +  Published 2014-04-22.
 +* For historical reference:
 +  * [Discussion about HTML in e-mail](https://​people.dsv.su.se/​~jpalme/​ietf/​mhtml-discussion.html "​Accessed 2017-10-11"​)
 +    Last revision 1998-05-22.
 +  * [The Ascii Ribbon Campaign official homepage](http://​www.asciiribbon.org/​ "​Accessed 2018-06-28"​)
 +    from around 2000 or even earlier
 +[Kaputte Zitate im Plain-Text von Gmail]: http://​www.luga.at/​mailing-lists/​luga/​2017/​10/​msg00005.html "​Accessed 2017-10-11"​
 +[Security Advisories for Thunderbird]:​ https://​www.mozilla.org/​en-US/​security/​known-vulnerabilities/​thunderbird/ ​ "​Accessed 2017-10-11"​
 +[Angry fruit salad]: https://​en.wiktionary.org/​wiki/​angry_fruit_salad "​Accessed 2017-11-04"​
 +[Efail: HTML Mails have no Security Concept and are to blame]: https://​blog.hboeck.de/​archives/​894-Efail-HTML-Mails-have-no-Security-Concept-and-are-to-blame.html "​Published 2018-06-27, accessed 2018-06-28"​