Comment by 🛰️ lufte
Re: "Plain text email - To wrap or not wrap?"
That is one long RFC to address something that looks simple at first sight. I guess nothing is really that simple when you dig deep enough. Too bad that it requires a sort of agreement between the parties, the sender must include the parameter and the recipient has to support it.
2024-09-09 · 2 years ago
2 Later Comments ↓
🌧️ deafpolygon · 2025-08-09 at 10:42:
there was a time when client viewers weren't really capable of wrapping, and a hard wrap was necessary. this is no longer true, and we shouldn't hard-wrap by practice anymore. let the client reflow the text as needed.
🐦 JustASillyBird · Apr 11 at 12:14:
Deafpolygon is right: Wrapping text in email was always a work-around for the crude technology of the time. This is no longer an issue.
To give some idea: Why is it tradition to wrap lines at 80 columns? Because that is how wide the old teletype terminals allowed. And why did they wrap at 80? Because 80 columns is also the width of an IBM punched card.
Original Post
Plain text email - To wrap or not wrap? — I found Drew DeVault's guide on plain text email a while ago but I was never convinced on the "Wrapping your text" recommendation. Why force a width limit on readers of your email that will end up looking like this if they, by any chance, have an even smaller window or bigger font? Why not leave it to the viewer software?