Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the client is interpreting the content and then displaying its interpretation to the user, then it's not plain text anymore, is it? Yes it is. > It's a format Yes, plain text is a format. The best format. > in this case it's a poorly-specified, ad-hoc format and broken format[1] that is worse than simply having a reduced ad-hoc HTML format. Well sure, plain text sucks at being HTML. That's because it isn't HTML;…
>> For example, what if the sender types in `You should go to http://ww.example.com , where "example" must be replaced with your company name`? Suddenly `www.example.com` has an unintended DDoS! > Ah, so that doesn't happen if the sender types in the wrong thing in HTML...? I can't tell if you're being purposely contrarian or simply don't understand users. The problem: Things that shouldn't be links get turned into l…
Or, if you want, the problem is that the recipient's client software HTMLifies text. Stupid client software (and possibly stupid recipient, for using the stupid software). Still has nothing to do with HTML vs text per se. Yes, that is literally $SOME_OTHER_PROBLEM. I mean, really? You can't tell the difference between various formats and problems caused by something else entirely?
(I get the feeling your supercilious "I mean, really?" was intended to slyly convey that I was the one being stupid here. IMO that backfired rather convincingly.)