While appearance may be eye candy, it does not add to the value of the text content.
[...]
two words...... security & efficiency.
<flame> Two more words: mental myopia.
The very basic premise of "[appearance] does not add to the value of the text content" is so wrong, that I'm loath to explain it to you... since you probably won't even try to understand a different point of view, let alone fully comprehend it.
I find Scott's analogy of color vs. black-and-white TV apropos, and many others could be made in that vein. The primary problems (i.e. virii and backdoors in IE and OE) are not caused by HTML per se but rather by weak and insecure implementations thereof. Thus you are assuming a cause-and-effect relationship where such is not really the case. Yes, in the majority of cases (Windows users in particular) HTML mail is dangerous. But HTML itself is not the root cause of the problem.
However, that is the less-important point. Presentation is always, has always been, and will always be one component of the value of anything. Given ANY two objects or concepts of equal value in all other respects (ceteris paribus, if you will) but where one of the two has better presentation, 99.999% of human beings WILL see a difference between the two and choose the one with better presentation. (In case you missed it, note the "of equal value in all other respects").
I am not saying that good presentation can or will overcome poor value in content... although that can and does happen. I am saying that it is foolish and blind in the extreme to write off presentation as irrelevant. For one example, in oh-so-many of the business email messages that I write, I specifically switch to using HTML in order to get properly-indented, numbered paragraphs or bulleted lists. I do so in order to include images inside my message so that the reader (even that blithering idiot over in wherever who can barely turn on the computer) will instantly be able to see them and comment. I do so in order to communicate my content more clearly, cleanly, and quickly (with better presentation, readers understand more quickly and easily... else the whole publishing industry would be vastly different). I do it because I make more money when my clients or my bosses react favorably to my ideas, and they react better when I present it in a more attractive and readable way.
There are valid reasons to use text-only email in some situations. There are also lots and lots of valid reasons to use HTML mail in other situations. And there is NO reason to state that either choice A or choice B is invalid in all cases, other than sheer unrelenting fanaticism.
Anyone who says that HTML email is unfailingly and unequivocally useless and dangerous in all situations and for all people is either blind, stupid, or totally out of touch with the technological evolution and basic societal constructs of the human race.
Sadly, there seem to be a a few of you folks out there somewhere. </flame>
-- Rodolfo J. Paiz rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.simpaticus.com
