I don't want email messages with, inline pictures, colours, and links that obscure their target. (I also don't want emoji.) Tables can still be made in plain text if necessary. (I use a email client that does not even support HTML email, so it is displayed as plain text anyways. If you send it as both (which some programs do), then it can be possible to configure the client (if it can be configured as such) to display it as plain text.)
Tables can't be made in plain text, they'll break on reflow (very common in this day and age to have devices of various widths), also it's harder to do tables by hand
Sending as both: what happens to clients that can't be configured as such?
I mentioned in a sister comment, one advantage of plaintext email, regardless of your client, is that they can be viewed in any font you'd like.
There are fonts that are a bit more accessible to people with dyslexia like Comic Sans which companies aren't going to just randomly start sending emails in.
Can we take a step back and think about what we "win" with "inline pictures, colours, links and tables"?
> for the point 1% of people who use mutt.
It's not only using mutt. There are actually quite a few things that you lose by using HTML e-mails. You just don't know them, and so you consider that the way you use e-mail is the best.
Not saying that you are wrong, and maybe 99% of users actually don't want to use e-mail like those 1% you mention. But before you say so, it would be great if you considered those use-cases that you don't know. Because maybe those 1% using mutt have a valid point :-).
What we lose is simply not worth it for the point 1% of people who use mutt.