[coldouthere]

Reminds me of the ascii ribbon campaign against non-human readable formats in email.

I switched to a text only email client a few months back. I really don't think I am missing anything. HTML content tends to be chaff/advertising.

[lwhsiao]

I recently switched to mutt and using plain-text email as well. So far there have been very few times that I've felt the need to jump back to the webmail to send something (e.g. inline images). Overall, I've thoroughly enjoyed the simplicity of plain text email using my text editor of choice.

[jasonkostempski]

In my experience, for personal email, text-only is a non-issue; for work stuff, it's not even an option.

[dvfjsdhgfv]

Can you elaborate why? I sometimes abuse this option by including screenshots in the body of e-mail, but I could as well add it as an attachment. Other than that I see no reason to use HTML in e-mail conversations at work.

[dingaling]

Intra-corporate e-mail is often used as an ad hoc document collaboration tool.

"See my comments in blue", strikethroughs, inline diagrams, bullet points, big red font for emphasis.

Of course that should all be done in a dedicated application, but who is going to provision and authorise users for that versus just adding Bob to the cc line and giving him implicit editing capabilities?

The functional overloading of corporate e-mail is a user-driven reaction to the awfulness of most " collaborative' software.

[diggernet]

I've always had my work email client set to text only. Never been a problem for me (unless you consider missing out on a lot of unnecessary smilies, fonts, and colors a problem).

[KGIII]

I too am confused. The only time I've used HTML in email was when I used the web interface and plain text wasn't an option.