[LastTrain]

So, spam.

[yakshaving_jgt]

Is transactional email spam?

[LastTrain]

Well, that depends. Is it something I need to see? Did I proactively ask for it, or did I neglect to opt out? Etc, etc. If you are having to measure response rate, and it doesn't involve an emergency alert or some such, it is probably spam.

[yakshaving_jgt]

Transactional mail is not marketing mail.

It's typically a notification in response to an action you initiated on some web application.

https://postmarkapp.com/blog/what-is-transactional-email-and...

[LastTrain]

OK. So what, I'm not going to complete my password reset notification because the page isn't beautiful? If you are tracking response rates it is because people aren't expecting an email, because they didn't ask for one (i.e. it isn't a password reset notification). GP is right - I want information I /need/ to be in an email in a succinct format, and I don't want emails I don't need.

[yakshaving_jgt]

1. Yes, normal people who don’t read HN have less trust in a plaintext email.

2. Yes, abandonment will be higher if the user can’t click the password reset link in the email.

[marssaxman]

> less trust in a plaintext email

What a remarkable idea! "HTML mail = useless bullshit" is such a strong correlation in my mind that it had never occurred to me other people might see it the opposite way.

[seba_dos1]

How much sense does it make to measure and discuss response rates for transactional mails though?

[blowski]

Low response rates are used as a spam signal by major email providers, whatever the type of email.

[seba_dos1]

How does that make any sense when those are often sent from no-reply addresses that are routed nowhere?