Wouldn't that be a token problem, which could happen in a text version as well?
I used mutt for over 10 years, and gave up a few years ago. Having clear emails also includes having a good design.
Regardless of form, most companies go through cycles of cramming more and more clutter in emails, before restarting from scratch, and eventually back to clutter again.
> does anyone know if text only (rather than html) messages more likely to get past spam/newsletter filters?
At least SpamAssassin checks for that, and IIRC HTML increases the spam score by default.
In general they would probably look like garbage in any email client that provides a secure place to look at HTML emails. It isn't just text mode clients that have that issue.
I wish companies would focus more on content, rather than form. Recently I got a garbage html email from paypal telling me my donation account will be blocked by a certain date, but the sentence ended abruptly without a date they were referencing. They spend huge amount of time on large amount of weird html markup, but screw up on an actual useful content.
Anyway, does anyone know if text only (rather than html) messages more likely to get past spam/newsletter filters?