On 09/12/2019 08:50, Maarten Oelering via mailop wrote:
Multipart messages with html and text alternatives are generally considered
best practice. Senders with html templates should add a text version is the
common believe.
But it's almost 2020, and we were wondering if there's still a good reason for
adding plain text to a html message. Is there a significant audience reading in
plain text? Is plain text important for accessibility? Because SpamAssassin
says so?
Automated software/filters will find it a lot easier to read plain text
than HTML. This will include things like screen-readers.
Many people DO read in plain text because of the perceived risk of HTML
(tracking images etc)
Many 'techies' read in plain text because it's better & cleaner than HTML
Why wouldn't you add a plain text alternative? Software can
automatically generate a reasonable plain text version quite easily and
it'll probably be a small fraction of the size of the HTML version, so
why not do it? (But test it! A lot of automated generation is rubbish -
I've seen ones where the plain text version is identical to the HTML
version - tags and all)
--
Paul Smith Computer Services
Tel: 01484 855800
Vat No: GB 685 6987 53
Sign up for news & updates at http://www.pscs.co.uk/go/subscribe
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
