Ah. I think the difference is that when I send emails, I do so to communicate information, rather than to elicit people to buy a product.

Are you relying on the user's email client to convert plaintext URIs into interactive hyperlinks in transactional mail?

No. As I said, I'm not advocating for plain text only emails, just simple ones.

Even when communicating important information, using the company design has been the norm since graphic printing was invented. Even something as transactional as a bank statement or court summon will use the sending organization's logo, fonts and colors.

So, spam.

Is transactional email spam?

Well, that depends. Is it something I need to see? Did I proactively ask for it, or did I neglect to opt out? Etc, etc. If you are having to measure response rate, and it doesn't involve an emergency alert or some such, it is probably spam.

Transactional mail is not marketing mail.

It's typically a notification in response to an action you initiated on some web application.

https://postmarkapp.com/blog/what-is-transactional-email-and...

How much sense does it make to measure and discuss response rates for transactional mails though?

Low response rates are used as a spam signal by major email providers, whatever the type of email.

How does that make any sense when those are often sent from no-reply addresses that are routed nowhere?

I think response rate is meant more generally in this context. It doesn't necessarily literally mean an email in response. I think more typically it means the recipient following the call to action link in the email.

OK. So what, I'm not going to complete my password reset notification because the page isn't beautiful? If you are tracking response rates it is because people aren't expecting an email, because they didn't ask for one (i.e. it isn't a password reset notification). GP is right - I want information I /need/ to be in an email in a succinct format, and I don't want emails I don't need.

1. Yes, normal people who don’t read HN have less trust in a plaintext email.

2. Yes, abandonment will be higher if the user can’t click the password reset link in the email.

> less trust in a plaintext email

What a remarkable idea! "HTML mail = useless bullshit" is such a strong correlation in my mind that it had never occurred to me other people might see it the opposite way.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm.

Personally, I've been using mutt in the terminal as my primary email client for several years, and I absolutely prefer plaintext email.

But this isn't about me. Nor is it about any other computer nerd here clutching their pearls over HTML email. The reality is that users of web applications — the kind that probably a significant proportion of HN readers develop to earn a living — expect HTML transactional email.

It's table stakes. That's just the reality.

Not sarcasm at all.

That's certainly why you aren't good fishing candidate like many people ;-)

Beautiful emails are easy. Emails with well conveyed and informative text- much much harder.