"The client wants you to make that email responsive in Outlook 2000."

Lemme just fetch my DeLorean and get back to the future...

"fuck this shit I'm out!"

To be fair though, not much have happened with the email HTML the last decade.
Tables. Tables everywhere.

Totally the shit of the century. Every fucking single asshole who wants a newsletter without even know why, starts mumbling bullshit about compatibility and ends up with the great idea "people doesn't have to upgrade if they don't want to. Is the developer who has to create better technology which fits in their systems". Fuck it, seriously. Or kill me. I don't want to live in the same earth with those dickheads.

@Python It's true, and yes it's all tables. Yet responsive emails are a hot item. They work on the assumption that modern email clients will look for and respect media queries found in style tags.

HTML emails are an evil all of their own, but when you add 'responsive' to the mix, they become something even more sinister.

I was once a happy back-end developer. Now they call me 'full stack'. It reminds me of when I was told Santa isn't real. The innocence lost... and forever yearning for a return of the more simple times.

@xorith Oh shit. I feel your pain.
When someone asked me for a responsive email (or more descriptive, "I want to read it on my phone") I just smacked on some fancy background color, branded the links, added their logo and centered all the text.

Tried to keep it as simple as possible, but still someone out there had Lotus Notes and got everything fucked up anyway.

@Python I use a tool called Litmus to test emails. It's nice to see the result, but it lends to a whole other share of problems.

Then there's the fact that Outlook renders completely different between Mac and Windows due to the embedded rendering library it uses on each. :) Some how they still use Word to render Outlook emails on Windows.