Plain Text versus Rich Text HTML

[Coldicote]

What are the advantages or disadvantages of Plain Text versus Rich Text (HTML)? I frequently include a picture in the body of an email, but it seems the addressees don't always see them.

[boxtops]

Rich text can be read by almost anyone, plain text doesn't always carry changes - and you can't change font or highlight etc in plain text. I always convert to HMTL if I'm not just sending straightforward "plain text".

[Coldicote]

That's interesting Boxtops. I wonder what is the point of Plain Text anyway when one can do without it.

[rojash]

"I wonder what is the point of Plain Text anyway when one can do without it."

Plain text can be read by every single mail client. It is the original format of e-mails. All other formats are kludges which "piggy-back" on top the plain text.

Believe it or not, when you send an attachment or insert a picture into an e-mail, it is actually converted into plain text before it is sent, and converted back by the receiving client.

[AlBags]

Plain text: You cannot get infected by anything when using it. Many companies used to insist on it being used.

[Coldicote]

Interesting points thank you, but does the person receiving it have to be set to receive Rich Text, or will the change happen automatically if they happen to be a Plain Text user?

[VHG]

You can set an email client to say you only want to receive emails in plain text.

Note also not all computers have "fancy" graphics interfaces and in the past I have read emails on mainframes or unix machines with very simple email clients that could not display rich text.

[Coldicote]

Thank you, that does clarify the issue.