It's sad that you feel it's "sucking up" when you place value on the other person's existence when considering how you couch your message's intent.

A mathematical formula will always have the same result, but a linguistic formula will not. It is unique to every single individual to have ever existed. The words each have a hidden iceberg of meaning which is compounded by the context, not just within the expression, but within the receiver's life.

Things such as relationship problems, election concerns, digestion, PTSD, and background music can all dramatically change how an email is received.

I hope you grow beyond your cynicism.

There is something to be said for taking the reciever's context into account, but it's not possible or desirable to account for the state of their digestion &c in every communication.

An excess of empathy gets in the way of clear communication, and recievers should accept that their context is not completely available to senders. They have some responsibility to interpret charitably, and if they don't they're failing to follow basic principles of cooperative social interactions.

A cruder way of putting it: you shouldn't expect everyone who talks to you to be minutely concerned with your personal shit.

It is up to the person responding to take your message as they will. Reaching out and attempting to align with the party you are contacting is being vulnerable and has no guarantee of a favorable response - or one at all. However, that is something in itself that may either characterize the individual or could simply be a reflection of what they are currently going through. Some knowledge of this can be baked into the initial message to imply understanding of that person's situation in life, mental state, interests, etc. It is more difficult to connect with someone whose point of view you are oblivious to.