The strange thing is that Outlook 2000 and 2003 did, because they used IE's rendering engine. But then with Outlook 2007, they switched to Word's engine for "security reasons" but haven't added some of even the most basic modern HTML features to it over the last five years...
And I'm not trying to reignite the "tables are bad" hoopla. I get that tables are for tabular data. They make the most sense and are very good at it. However tables still effortlessly accomplish things that take a mountain of "hacks" and workarounds with other elements, like percentile heights and widths, in conjunction with centering content inside of cells horizontally and vertically, as well as gutters via cell padding and margins.
If this is not the elegant or desired solution, then we as a community need to make a concentrated effort to get HTML email up to spec. It's clearly here to stay, and not some passing fad like was bemoaned at the introduction of richly formatted emails. Unfortunately here to stay has also meant we've been stuck with what we shipped.
Until that day that we finally fix this, I'm erring to the side of tables in emails for greater functionality and compatibility.
Thank christian God, Allah, Osiris and Buddha all at the same time.
Something more horrible than HTML emails would be HTML emails with jquery and more useless stuff.
I send html emails. Not always but quite often I'm emailing people where this won't communicate the same making the text italic or bold.
Or I'm sending a code fragment and I want it indented and renderedin a monospace font.
Or I want to embed an image, or I want to linkify some text.
Can we stop having this debate? It's a was a battle lost a long time ago and the cost has been largely worth the benefits.