I agree with you, but most people don't (specially those sending the mails)
In that situation, it seems more productive to advocate for multi-part emails with a sensible plain text part than to sentence "mails should be plain text only", with no arguments and no compromises...
I don't terribly mind html emails as such - sure, it's sad that those that enable html are more likely to get tracked and/or hacked, than those of us that stick to reading the text/plain and distinct attachments (eg: images).
The real question is: does this render nice, full, text/plain? I doubt it - it's certainly possible to go from <rich XML format> to markdown/ReST/etc+html -- but it seems much easier to get good text/plain results by using something like markdown as the foundation (markdown becomes the text/plain part).
The faq doesn't say, and from a glance the docs don't mention text/plain. So I'm guessing this generates invalid email (no usable text/plain part).
You’re right - this way of communicating doesn’t help finding a solution to a situation that - in your and my opinion- shouldn’t exist in the first place :)
I might be just too tired and not be open trying to search for these solutions until someone with a problem in that area hires me to solve it...
EDIT:
Reading my message again I must highlight there are some argumentation points in my original message :)
In that situation, it seems more productive to advocate for multi-part emails with a sensible plain text part than to sentence "mails should be plain text only", with no arguments and no compromises...