(as)  [sysadmin] [blog]

User Tools

Site Tools


html-mail-vs-plain-text

Differences

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 [2017-11-04 22:17]
andreas Added input from LUGA.at discussion 2017-10. Overhaul of references.
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 11: Line 11:
     [Kaputte Zitate im Plain-Text von Gmail])     [Kaputte Zitate im Plain-Text von Gmail])
   * Less transparent;​ errors are harder to debug (for users _and_ developers)   * Less transparent;​ errors are harder to debug (for users _and_ developers)
-  * Higher hurdle for first time users (e.g. for newsletters)+  * Higher hurdle for first time users (e.g. for composing ​newsletters)
 * Security hazards (cf. security bug fixes of main mail programs such * Security hazards (cf. security bug fixes of main mail programs such
-  as [Security Advisories for Thunderbird])+  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) * Privacy hazards (e.g. HTML is used to track users)
-* Content more likely to be falsely categorized as spam (citation needed) 
 * Some automated systems (e.g. mailing lists) do not accept HTML and will * 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   reject messages, or use only the alternative plain text part, or convert
   the HTML potentially causing formatting issues.   the HTML potentially causing formatting issues.
 * Requires HTML aware software * Requires HTML aware software
-* Reduced accessibility?​ 
 * Double effort (HTML _and_ text need to be formatted and checked) * Double effort (HTML _and_ text need to be formatted and checked)
 * Little guarantee that HTML will be shown as intended * Little guarantee that HTML will be shown as intended
 * More distractions (e.g. font selectors, emoji buttons) * More distractions (e.g. font selectors, emoji buttons)
 * Harder to write (formatting takes more time) * Harder to write (formatting takes more time)
-* "​[Angry fruit salad](https://​en.wiktionary.org/​wiki/​angry_fruit_salad)": +* "​[Angry fruit salad]":​ Every user chooses a different font in a different 
-  ​Every user chooses a different font in a different color and different size.+  ​color and different size.
  
  
Line 49: Line 47:
 * Text is shown by all devices and programs * Text is shown by all devices and programs
 * Accessibility as good as it gets * 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.
  
  
Line 55: Line 59:
 * Wikipedia: * Wikipedia:
   [HTML email](https://​en.wikipedia.org/​wiki/​HTML_email "​Accessed 2017-10-11"​)   [HTML email](https://​en.wikipedia.org/​wiki/​HTML_email "​Accessed 2017-10-11"​)
-* LUGA.at thread +* Hanno Böck: [Efail: HTML Mails have no Security Concept and are to blame] 
-  [Plain Text vs. HTML-Mails](http://​www.luga.at/​mailing-lists/​luga/​2017/​10/​threads.html#​00041 "​Accessed 2017-11-03") +* 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. 
-  ​October + November 2017.+* 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): * 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"​)   [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"​)
Line 78: Line 84:
   Published 2014-04-22.   Published 2014-04-22.
 * For historical reference: * For historical reference:
-  [Discussion about HTML in e-mail](https://​people.dsv.su.se/​~jpalme/​ietf/​mhtml-discussion.html "​Accessed 2017-10-11"​) +  ​[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.+    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"​ [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"​ [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"​
 +
 </​markdown>​ </​markdown>​
  
html-mail-vs-plain-text.1509830231.txt.gz · Last modified: 2017-11-04 22:17 by andreas