[HN Gopher] Use Plaintext Email (2019)
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Use Plaintext Email (2019)
        
       Author : cyrc
       Score  : 91 points
       Date   : 2025-06-28 18:10 UTC (4 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (useplaintext.email)
 (TXT) w3m dump (useplaintext.email)
        
       | mattl wrote:
       | Weird omission of some clients like Thunderbird from the list.
        
         | miles wrote:
         | https://useplaintext.email/#thunderbird
        
           | mattl wrote:
           | Yet it's missing from the recommendation list.
           | 
           | I don't think you're going to get many people switching from
           | mail.google.com to something in a terminal emulator straight
           | away.
        
             | zahlman wrote:
             | The recommendations list is described thus:
             | 
             | > These clients all compose plain text emails by default,
             | with correct quoting and text wrapping settings, requiring
             | no additional configuration to use correctly.
             | 
             | Thunderbird is not in the list because it requires
             | configuration.
             | 
             | The recommended list includes several GUIs and web clients.
        
         | daneel_w wrote:
         | Given the unfathomably bloated mess the desktop issue has
         | become it doesn't entirely belong in the list of recommended
         | clients.
        
           | mattl wrote:
           | There's no other cross platform GUI client I can think of.
        
             | daneel_w wrote:
             | Claws and Sylpheed come to mind.
        
               | mattl wrote:
               | * https://www.claws-mail.org/downloads.php
               | 
               | * https://sylpheed.sraoss.jp/en/download.html
               | 
               | Compare those to https://www.thunderbird.net/en-
               | US/thunderbird/all
               | 
               | I can't find a current download for modern macOS on
               | either of the first two
        
         | johnklos wrote:
         | Thunderbird is basically a web browser that executes whatever
         | you want it to.
        
         | linhns wrote:
         | Intentional or not, good omission though.
        
       | SoftTalker wrote:
       | While I greatly prefer plain text email, trimming quoted text
       | that isn't relevant to the reply, and replying inline rather than
       | top-posting, all the major email clients discourage this, or at
       | least don't make it easy by default, so it's a lost cause in 2025
       | (and was lost long before today).
        
         | dsr_ wrote:
         | I have not had problems doing it for the last 35 years, so if
         | you are using terrible tools, you should probably fix that.
        
           | SoftTalker wrote:
           | You misunderstood, or I wasn't very clear. I have and use
           | good email tools. I only meant that the crusade to get
           | everyone else to follow is lost.
           | 
           | I am the one oddball in my office who doesn't use Outlook and
           | who sends plain-text emails with ">" prefixed quotes. But I'm
           | under no illusions that anyone else is going to be convinced,
           | and I no longer make any effort to try.
        
             | leakycap wrote:
             | Modern email clients are getting too clever for their own
             | good, and I have no choice on what client others use.
             | 
             | For decades, inline replies worked perfectly--you'd quote
             | the relevant part and respond right underneath it. But now
             | email apps are "helping" by trimming messages into compact
             | views, cutting off replies right at the first quoted
             | section unless someone taps "show more."
             | 
             | I've basically abandoned inline replied and have gone back
             | to dumping everything at the top like it's 1995.
             | 
             | The irony is these apps think they're making email better
             | by hiding "clutter," but they're actually making
             | conversations harder to follow.
        
               | jolmg wrote:
               | You can still make the decision whether to top-post or
               | inline-post based on your recipient. Programmer's mailing
               | list -> inline post. Family member -> top post. You can
               | send a stranger an inline post, somehow confirm they were
               | able to view it, and include them in your mental
               | whitelist of people that understand inline posting.
               | 
               | Kind of like how one adjusts their language / choice of
               | words / choice of topics based on their recipient.
        
               | leakycap wrote:
               | No one except fellow older tech heads seem to speak in
               | the old ways
        
               | F3nd0 wrote:
               | A possible work-around that comes to mind is always
               | prefixing your reply with some form of '(reply below)'.
        
             | 8n4vidtmkvmk wrote:
             | I wrote a tool for my boss years ago that would reformat
             | emails for plain text and put those arrows and fix the
             | indentation. He loved it so much. Older gentleman. I guess
             | that's how he did it in his day and never saw the need to
             | change. Glad I could make him happy with like 1 day of
             | work. Tiny app.
        
           | alkonaut wrote:
           | Making more than a completely negligible group of people
           | change tools - or even the settings of their tools - is
           | what's a lost cause.
           | 
           | The easiest way for this crusade to succeed would be to take
           | aim at Outlook and Gmail and try to make them change
           | defaults.
        
         | antisol wrote:
         | It's only a lost cause if you decide to let it be.
         | 
         | Plain text email continues to work just fine for me every day.
        
         | yoz-y wrote:
         | My heart sank when I inline replied to a long email from a
         | clinic, only to get a reply that "you only said hello and your
         | message is empty".
         | 
         | I don't know what client they are using, or if they never
         | received a properly formatter reply in their life.
        
       | beached_whale wrote:
       | Another thing, set your mail readers to never automatically
       | download images. This prevents the senders from knowing
       | if/when/where from/and how often you read their message. There's
       | always a button to download the linked images but its suprising
       | how often it isn't needed. I do wish more mail clients had allow
       | and deny lists for this function.
        
         | mike-cardwell wrote:
         | And use https://www.emailprivacytester.com to test that your
         | email client is configured correctly
        
           | beached_whale wrote:
           | ERR connection refused like error. I guess gmail doesn't like
           | them
        
             | mike-cardwell wrote:
             | Sorry about that. Try again now
        
           | lovetox wrote:
           | Also does not work with fastmail.com adresses
        
             | mike-cardwell wrote:
             | Was a local error. Fixed now
        
           | xyst wrote:
           | What's interesting to see here is Apple's "Protect Mail
           | Activity" option working as advertised.
           | 
           | Loading images through their servers and throwing off the
           | tracking software.
        
             | beached_whale wrote:
             | It still says you loaded it though.
        
         | Bender wrote:
         | And also disable MDN's [1] in stand-alone email clients and
         | discard them in MTA's if your user-base is cool with it.
         | # grep MDN /etc/postfix/header_checks  change WARN* to discard
         | to drop them.         /^Subject: MDN: /    WARN MDN_Seen_1000
         | /^Subject: Read-Receipt-To: /   WARN MDN_Seen_1001
         | /^Subject: Disposition-Notification-To: / WARN MDN_Seen_1002
         | /^Message-ID: \<receipt/   WARN MDN_Seen_1003
         | /^Subject: Read: /    WARN MDN_Seen_1004
         | 
         | _using WARN as testing example, change to DISCARD to drop them_
         | 
         | [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_receipt
        
           | beached_whale wrote:
           | ooh good point, I ensure read receipts are disabled too. What
           | a bad feature these days.
        
           | 1718627440 wrote:
           | Why though? Sometimes it is useful to know whether the mail
           | got delivered, i.e. for handing in assignments. Also the read
           | notification is only sent on recipient wish.
        
             | beached_whale wrote:
             | you cannot depend on it and trackers/scammers/... use it as
             | a way to see if your address is actually alive or not.
        
             | Bender wrote:
             | DSN's _Delivery Status Notifications_ are absolutely useful
             | otherwise they never would have been created. Read-replies
             | and out of office auto-replies that reply to non corporate
             | primary domains are used to validate email addresses for
             | spammers. Even DSN 's can be abused this way. Older
             | versions of Exchange would not limit out-of-office replies
             | to the corporate domains.
             | 
             | One can drop read-replies and even out-of-office auto-
             | replies without dropping specific DSN's. It is up to each
             | organization how they wish to handle these. Some financial
             | institutions will go full BOFH _Bastard Operator from Hell,
             | like me_ and some will cherry pick what goes through such
             | as limiting responses to employees. Some will let
             | everything through to justify the purchase of their anti-
             | spam, anti-malware third party service. _I was brought into
             | existence in the 2150th level of hell._
             | 
             | So that is the cool thing about such rules is that one can
             | cherry pick whichever meets the needs and requirements of
             | their organization and this is just the beginning of what
             | one can do. The first step in this process is to enable
             | logging of Subjects, Attachment Names / Sizes, FCrDNS and
             | others to syslog then start building reports to see what is
             | leaking out of ones organization and what nonsense is
             | flooding ones organization. Some DLP's _Data Loss
             | Prevention_ appliances can do _some_ of this too but they
             | can be pricey and may leak data to yet another third party.
             | As a proper BOFH I keep logs in-house. Logging to a third
             | party can get extra painful with newer privacy laws in some
             | countries.
             | 
             | I always front-end exchange servers with multiple Postfix
             | servers with large queues so that work can be done without
             | losing things, extra logging can be enabled and extra anti-
             | spam capabilities can be enabled or added.
        
       | geor9e wrote:
       | Switch your display to greyscale. Disable javascript in your
       | browser. When someone sends you a meme, instead of clicking X to
       | dismiss the facebook login popup and see the public page, reply
       | "sorry, I don't have facebook". Become insufferable.
        
         | leakycap wrote:
         | > instead of clicking X to close the facebook login popup,
         | reply "sorry, I don't have facebook"
         | 
         | Never send facebook links, problem solved. It's poor form.
         | 
         | The little "X" you refer to is rarely there for those of us who
         | don't ever log in.
        
         | wazoox wrote:
         | But I don't have Facebook. The worst is the incessant "call me
         | back on WhatsApp". I don't use any of this crap.
        
           | mattl wrote:
           | What do you use? Not saying for a moment that anyone needs to
           | use Facebook, but I'm curious if you use anything else...
        
         | Fogest wrote:
         | I had to suffer with many dinosaurs in a University I worked
         | at, and they did in fact do pretty much everything you
         | mentioned. Was a pain in the ass to upgrade/improve sites while
         | trying to make sure these sites could operate without
         | JavaScript. It was such a waste of resources just for a few
         | people who refused to learn new things. The old way wasn't
         | really faster, they just refused to learn the new way.
         | 
         | One of them even was browsing many webpages using a command
         | line based browser rather than just using something like
         | Firefox.
        
       | sneak wrote:
       | I prefer plain text email, but this cranky unix-user anti-
       | features tradition is a bad thing. Discord won over IRC because
       | the people who make IRC clients and servers think the world in
       | 1999 was the pinnacle of engineering. It wasn't.
       | 
       | Rich text emails are great. So are variable-width fonts.
        
         | kevincox wrote:
         | Yeah, the occasional bold word, inline link, heading or even
         | the occasional image can make a message much more readable. If
         | you don't like bold words your client can ignore that tag.
         | 
         | I think this is partly an over-reaction to some senders that go
         | way overboard with bright colours a hundred images and complex
         | layout that doesn't render right on your screen size. But just
         | because a capability can be used poorly doesn't mean that it
         | can't be used well.
         | 
         | I can also understand that some people choose to prefer the
         | text version of messages because it is so common to "abuse"
         | HTML. And for those people I even include a text fallback in
         | case their client doesn't have the ability to do that.
        
           | pomatic wrote:
           | I'm sure markdown email has been done? But just didn't gain
           | traction?
        
             | jaffa2 wrote:
             | Mailmate on macos solves this very nicely. As a bonus my
             | html mails have never looked better and i get the bonus of
             | writing in text using markdown . Currently evaluating it.
        
         | encom wrote:
         | >1999 was the pinnacle of engineering
         | 
         | Typing words to strangers online, worked just as well using IRC
         | in 1999 as it does today. However my issue with Discord isn't
         | the rich text, it's that Discord is a proprietary, centralised,
         | CIA honeypot and a garbage company. Their Electron client is
         | the least of their sins.
         | 
         | >Rich text emails are great.
         | 
         | They can be. They usually aren't. Yesterday I got a marketing
         | email from an electricity provider. The unsubscribe link was
         | 1302 characters of obfuscated Sendgrid bullshit. And it was
         | full of tracking images and all links had click tracking. I
         | wonder how this crap is GDPR compliant, because I'm fairly sure
         | I never consented to any of this.
        
       | zahlman wrote:
       | For Proton users:
       | 
       | > Visit Settings - Appearance
       | 
       | > Set "Composer Mode" to "Plain Text"
       | 
       | This is out of date; the setting is now in "Messages and
       | Composing" (after a break), not in "Appearance". (You'll have to
       | scroll down a fair bit.)
        
       | kelnos wrote:
       | I used to care about this, but these days it just seem pointless,
       | and I just can't summon a slice of my limited energy for
       | attention to care about this. I also find many of the reasons
       | listed to be somewhat irrelevant:
       | 
       | > _HTML as a vector for phishing_
       | 
       | > _Privacy invasion and tracking_
       | 
       | > _Higher incidence of spam_
       | 
       | > _Mail client vulnerabilities_
       | 
       | These are all potentially reasons to disable the _display_ of
       | HTML email in your own mail client, but they aren 't a reason not
       | to _send_ HTML email. As a sender, I know I 'm not trying to
       | phish my recipient, or invade their privacy or track them, or
       | spam them, or try to trigger a mail client vulnerability. So
       | these just don't matter.
       | 
       | From the recipient's point of view, many people receive HTML
       | emails (that don't have an embedded plain-text alternative), and
       | actually do need to read those emails. The kind of person who
       | doesn't, likely already is a firm believer in plain-text-only and
       | doesn't need to be convinced.
       | 
       | And other reasons seem dubious:
       | 
       | > _HTML emails are less accessible_
       | 
       | This is odd, because HTML has accessibility features built into
       | it. Certainly a bunch of plain text is easier for a screen reader
       | to deal with, but only if the sender doesn't care about conveying
       | formatting or nuance at all. Later in the piece, the author
       | suggests using asterisks, underscores, etc. to indicate
       | bold/italic/etc., but I expect screen readers don't know what
       | that's supposed to mean, so using such a thing will make your
       | emails _less_ accessible, not more.
       | 
       | > _Some clients can 't display HTML emails at all_
       | 
       | The kind of people who use mail clients that can't display HTML
       | email at all are probably not in your target audience if you are
       | going to send HTML email. If people like that have deliberately
       | chosen to use software that can't display everything out there,
       | that's their choice, and they can deal with the consequences.
       | 
       | And anyway:
       | 
       | > _In a text-only interface it 's not possible to render an HTML
       | email, and instead the reader will just see a mess of raw HTML
       | text._
       | 
       | Then that's a missing feature in the terminal mail reader. If
       | lynx and links can render HTML to a terminal in a useful,
       | readable way, a mail reader can do so too.
       | 
       | > _A lot of people simply send HTML emails directly to spam for
       | this reason._
       | 
       | "A lot" is doing a bit of work there. I guess "a lot" of people
       | in the author's small bubble?
       | 
       | > _Rich text isn 't that great, anyway_
       | 
       | That's opinion, not fact, and reasonable people can reasonably
       | disagree. I happen to be one of them. I actually _don 't_ use
       | much in the way of text styling in my emails, but it's nice to
       | have the option, and as someone who does sometimes receive
       | actually-useful, non-spam HTML emails, the presentation/styling
       | often does add to the experience, not detract.
        
         | Spastche wrote:
         | >but they aren't a reason not to send HTML email
         | 
         | I've seen a lot of email providers flag random emails for
         | having weird HTML. why take the chance of non-delivery at all?
         | send plain text.
        
           | Fogest wrote:
           | I've never seen this.
        
       | F3nd0 wrote:
       | The main problem I always encountered when sending plan-text
       | e-mails was quote formatting. The 72-character limit works well
       | enough for my own reply, but when the quoted replies _already_
       | consist of 72-character lines, adding several levels of
       | indentation can break those up and mess up the formatting, since
       | the client doesn't extend the character limit for the quoted
       | parts, resulting in something like this:
       | 
       | > > > Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit,
       | sed do
       | 
       | eiusmod
       | 
       | > > > tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
       | 
       | Leaving it like that annoys me, while fixing it by hand gets
       | tedious very fast. I suppose some clients might know how to
       | handle this automatically, but I've never had the fortune of
       | using one. (And frankly, plain-text formatting is not among my
       | most important criteria when choosing an e-mail client.)
       | 
       | As many gotchas as HTML e-mail might have in practice, I find the
       | basic idea of giving messages semantic structure make a whole lot
       | of sense. And as for top posting, I understand the criticism, but
       | I find it very suitable for straightforward, back-and-forth
       | exchanges, which comprise a decent part of my e-mail
       | communication. So overall, I can't say I'm entirely sold on
       | plain-text e-mail.
        
         | layer8 wrote:
         | With terminal-based email programs, you can usually configure
         | your favorite editor for email authoring. And Vim, for example,
         | comes with support for handling email quotes appropriately when
         | using the (paragraph) text formatting commands like _gq_ [0].
         | 
         | [0] https://vimhelp.org/change.txt.html#formatting
        
       | nailer wrote:
       | Why would I limit proper display of my email to 78 character wide
       | monospace devices?
        
         | mr_mitm wrote:
         | They go into that at length in section 4.
        
         | skydhash wrote:
         | I think mobile viewing and most marketing email is around that
         | limit. So not really a hard choice to make.
        
       | alkonaut wrote:
       | Hard no.
       | 
       | Use whatever format and formatting your recipient wants. What
       | they want is just a function of what client they use. If you are
       | in an Outlook organization then just do whatever outlook does.
       | 
       | If you send to an external recipient you'll need to guess, but if
       | the recipient is at a medium to large corporation, chances are
       | it's Outlook there too.
       | 
       | And it's not that people with html clients can't read plaintext.
       | It's that it just looks odd to the recipient.
       | 
       | Once every 10000 emails I send something to one of the "technical
       | communities" mentioned. I can switch to plaintext then, or
       | bottom/inline reply etc - because they expect or require it. But
       | switching outright because a tiny group of niche techies find it
       | a good idea? No, sorry. Email was eaten by gmail and Outlook and
       | the only chance to change anything would be if their defaults
       | changed (which isn't happening).
        
         | Rotundo wrote:
         | I disagree with you vehemently.
         | 
         | The recipient will get what _I_ deem to be appropriate. I will
         | not, ever, stoop to the lowest common denominator of giving in
         | to the tyranny of Outlook and its ilk.
         | 
         | I'm sending text, not a complete website to the recipient.
        
           | rsync wrote:
           | Both you, and your parent, should consider changing your view
           | in favor of Postel's law:
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle
           | 
           | "... be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you
           | accept ..."
        
         | F3nd0 wrote:
         | On the other hand, it's perfectly reasonable not to give up the
         | choice that you prefer and consider superior in many ways, just
         | because 'e-mail was eaten by Gmail and Outlook'. In fact, I
         | personally feel great aversion to those two services and
         | strongly dislike the idea of letting them dictate the way I use
         | an open standard. If that was my main reason for ever using
         | HTML e-mail (which, thankfully, it's not), I'd really rather
         | just send plain text and have it look odd to the recipient.
        
         | mr_mitm wrote:
         | Well, I as a recipient want plain text.
        
         | Fogest wrote:
         | Yeah, I have to agree with this strongly. I worked at a
         | University before and it was only the super old employees still
         | using plain text email clients, everyone else was using
         | Outlook. Most of the reason for not switching was simply due to
         | a refusal to adapt and learn something new. Especially since
         | there are more modern clients that also feature
         | hotkeys/shortcuts that still allow you to do things quickly.
         | 
         | The people who refused to adapt to newer technology also caused
         | slowdowns in other parts of the workplace as anything new that
         | would be implemented in any site/service had to also try to
         | account for people who wanted to do things old ways, instead of
         | the faster new ways. Because they had 100 scripts they'd use to
         | make the old way not suck as much and viewed that as better
         | than learning the new way.
         | 
         | Realistically nobody is 100% productive, and the slight seconds
         | that may be lost using a GUI based email client over something
         | plaintext is insignificant.
        
       | wazoox wrote:
       | I do and always did, but it's quite frequent that people call me
       | on my weird emails (no colours ? no formatting ? weird !). It's a
       | completely lost cause unfortunately in this eternal September.
        
       | bitwize wrote:
       | "How about you use a mail client from this century." --the IT guy
       | from a former job
        
       | tonymet wrote:
       | i made a sendmail CLI for sending plain text mail using gmail and
       | outlook REST APIs.
       | 
       | Gmail's smtp gateway breaks plaintext formatting, restmail
       | preserves it.
       | 
       | https://github.com/tonymet/restmail
        
       | rsync wrote:
       | I use alpine, exclusively, for my personal _and work_ emails.
       | 
       | It's beautiful, lightweight, efficient and can perform complex
       | operations with keystrokes. Phishing URLs are glaringly obvious,
       | I can quickly view full headers with a press of 'H', and no
       | network traffic (trackers, pixels, counters) is generated by my
       | interaction with the email.
       | 
       | There's one other thing:
       | 
       | If your mailtool runs over SSH and you send email to someone else
       | running their mailtool over SSH on the same system ... the mail
       | delivery is _a local copy operation_.
       | 
       | Which is to say: _no rsync.net internal email has ever traversed
       | a network_.
       | 
       | That's nice.
        
         | layer8 wrote:
         | Similar here with Mutt. And I'm happy to report that most
         | emails still come with a text/plain part and don't force you to
         | use an HTML rendering fallback.
        
       | ChrisArchitect wrote:
       | Some previous discussions:
       | 
       | 2024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39033046
       | 
       | 2022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32810515
       | 
       | 2019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20513987
        
       | dsp_person wrote:
       | I spent some time hacking on things with dodo [1] but have fallen
       | back to thunderbird for the time being.
       | 
       | I'd settle for something markdown-like rather than full-blown
       | html. Basic headings, lists, and inline images are all I want.
       | 
       | [1] https://github.com/akissinger/dodo
        
       | 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASCII_ribbon_campaign
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-06-28 23:01 UTC)