I know a few people who slavishly refuse to read or send read e-mails in HTML format. They steadfastly cling to outdated notions that they are "safer" and "faster" by eschewing "pretty" e-mail for plain text. This came up once again in discussion, and after hearing the same tired old reasonings I just had to speak up. I will be addressing the "concerns" point by point.
HTML e-mail is unsafe
Let me start by saying that I have been using HTML e-mail for at least the last five years. I send HTML e-mails, I read HTML e-mails. I get newsletters in HTML format. In all that time I have never gotten a single virus running amok on my PC from an HTML e-mail, and I have had precious few e-mails containing a virus that my anti-virus software had to stop.
Both my anti-virus and firewall software keep a sharp eye out for malicious e-mail. With the proper protection, there is nothing to fear from receiving an e-mail in HTML format. Over the years I have used Outlook Express, Outlook, and currently Thunderbird. All of which work flawlessly HTML e-mail.
HTML e-mail is slow
Those who prefer plain text e-mail like to trumpet that HTML e-mails are twice as large. It turns out that this is true. Gasp! What to do? A little research proves the answer is: Nothing.
I took an e-mail that I recently received (which just so happened to be expounding on the evils of HTML e-mail) consisting of 366 words. I added all sorts of HTML tricks to it like different fonts, bold, italics, and a few emoticons, all of which doubled the size this e-mail to a whopping 5 kilobytes. A few quick calculations show this will take about .73 seconds to transmit via-dial up.
An HTML e-mail of over 2100 words takes about 5 seconds to transmit. Once again, that is over dial up. Remember that 2100 words is a good-size magazine article. Most e-mails are no where near that size. Also remember that if you have DSL or cable it will take quite a bit less time.
Some HTML e-mail will reference pictures from other places in the internet. In a dial-up environment this can be slow, and is another common argument that is used against HTML e-mail. However, most e-mail software has the ability to prevent HTML e-mail from accessing content from elsewhere on the internet, should the user so choose.
HTML e-mail is rude
Some who prefer plain text also like to say that it is rude to send e-mail in HTML format when they prefer it in plain text. Balderdash! I say. I should be able to send e-mail in any format I desire. How the recipient chooses to read it is up to them. Most e-mail clients can be configured to show all e-mails in plain text, even if they were sent in HTML.
My PC Is Too Old
As Colonal Potter used to say on M*A*S*H, "Horsefeathers!" Thunderbird will run on operating systems as old as Windows 98. Other e-mail clients will go back as far as Windows 3.1. Heck, I even found one that will run on DOS! So if you have an old system, teach it a new trick with HTML e-mail.
Now if it your personal preference to read e-mail strictly in the Courier font, without any embellishment or modification, by all means enjoy yourself. But don't expect me to believe that HTML e-mail threatens our virtual security and happiness. I'm not buying it.
Thus endth the rant.
2 comments:
Sheryl Crow says, "Stop calling me Sherly!"
Keith, you know I love you, and I put no other Densan above you, but...
>HTML e-mail is unsafe
>In all that time I have never gotten a
>single virus running amok on my PC from an HTML e-mail, and I have had
>precious few e-mails containing a virus that my anti-virus software had
>to stop.
That you know of. And I wonder how many little trackers you've downloaded that are sending private information back to people whose business it isn't. The fact is that HTML *can* contain viruses and other malicious code. Feel free to rely on your antivirus and firewall software if you like. Lots of people think they're "safe" because they use condoms, too.
I got the "I Love You" virus on my computer at work. It went through all the graphics files on my computer, big dollar client project work, and trashed them all. I didn't open the mail, I only clicked on it in the list, and it showed up in my preview pane and promptly emailed itself to everyone in the office and all of our clients, where it trashed all their graphics files, too (at least, those whose email software was configured to render HTML). The rest of that morning was consumed in restoring all of our computers from the previous night's backup. Did we have antivirus software? Yes. Was it kept up to date? Yes. But this was a new virus, and it wasn't until later that day that Symantec had a new virus definition file so that we were protected from this new virus. Did I get the virus at home? No. No Outlook, no HTML, no hook for the virus to grab onto.
I knew a girl in college who had had unprotected sex with dozens of men, and never got pregnant, and never got an STD. By your logic, we should recommend that behavior to everyone. It's colorful, it's fun, it's entertaining, and she never got any diseases.
>HTML e-mail is slow
>Those who prefer plain text e-mail like to trumpet that HTML e-mails are
>twice as large.
Just recently, I got a message and sat there watching the downloading progress bar, thinking, "What the heck is this person sending me?" (I'm paraphrasing for polite company), and I'm on a DSL connection. Granted, it took all of five or ten seconds, but I don't like getting files that I didn't ask for. Turns out it was the lavender background, a 65k file. You may not think that's rude, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. And, to be fair, I tend not to think it's rude so much as just clueless. And every time this person sends someone email, there goes that freakin' 65k background. I'm sure that friends who read these on a Blackberry are ever so grateful that it's in there.
>HTML e-mail is rude
Yeah, as I said, I tend to think it's clueless rather than rude. Unless it's spam, most of which comes in HTML, and some of which has the nerve to tell me my email client is outdated because it's unable to (that is, has been configured not to) render their garbage.
>My PC Is Too Old
Not an issue for me. It's not that I *can't* read your HTML crap, it's that I *won't.* I have a browser that's perfectly capable of rendering it, oh, wait, I wonder which flavor of HTML it is... Was it designed for IE or for Netscape or for Firefox, maybe for Opera? Because some HTML only works on IE, and some only works on... well, you get the point. And let's see, who can read my plain-text email exactly as it is intended? Why, everyone can!
Even though my email program is configured to render your HTML code into innocuous text, there are still non-standard characters in lots of HTML email that come through wrong, weird character combinations everywhere an apostrophe should be, or other characters at the end of each line of text. It's irritating. I generally get over it, but it does make it hard to read. Again, who has trouble reading my plain-text email? No one.
Not all email clients generate messages that have a plain-text component. Outlook used to be awful about this, maybe it's better now. My email client's last revision includes an HTML parser that will extract the text from an HTML message, but the previous version just displayed, "There is no text component to this message." I can't remember which clients sent those, but I'm pretty sure Outlook was the most common offender. Bulk mailers were pretty bad about that, too.
Not too long ago, someone on a list I administer was having a heck of a time with the list server rejecting one of his messages because of unacceptable content. He tried and tried, and we went back and forth on it. Eventually, I think he was able to figure out how to send the message in plain text, and there was no problem. I just don't see the payoff for all that unnecessary tinkering. Ironically, he later wrote an article extolling the virtues of HTML email. :-)
Then again, I can see where people's email content is so lacking that they might want to make up for it by putting some dancing leprechauns and a lavender background on it. I think they call that "putting lipstick on a pig."
Stan
Post a Comment