Months ago I preemptively explained this is exactly what you would post given enough time. I also explained why you'd be deluded into making the conclusion you were guaranteed to, and indeed did, make.

Your advice is often half-right. We've heard the twice a day broken clock analogy before here. Though a broken clock in the digital age is never right and a sundial only has a single chance a day. Anyway! Users here are given some benefit of the doubt. When you post anonymously there is less scrutiny and there is not a BIG BADGE of THE 30 YEAR VETERAN OF 10,000 LANGUAGES! lurking behind the half-right trough of sloth.

Here is a perfect and current example of your making–

Design your application from the very start so that content editors can devise new e-mails and change their content just by editing template files, which you read from a designated location separate from your program. Your software "renders the template" to produce the content that is then e-mailed. It generates a list of values which the editors can use in the templates.
Re^2: Formatting a MAil in PERL

Ostensibly a cromulent answer. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with it. It is, however, painfully lazy. Embarrassingly trite. A beginner or dilettante might be excused and encouraged for it but not a long term user who has been cautioned 100 times against it. Consider an analog offered on another topic–

Be safe in your car from the moment you climb in so that all safety features work as designed within the car which you do by following the owner's manual. Your key "starts the car" to produce motive power that then impels the vehicle. It takes you where you want to go.

Valueless and distracting at best. Dangerous and disruptive at worst. It's not seven, as I've demonstrated. I guarantee that if you write one of your 7 paragraph soft-serve diatribes or technical fubars instead of handwaving anonymously, you'll get your usual 30+ downvotes. Playing the victim is always going to backfire because there is a mountain of evidence that it's just not the case. Sticking to sunk costs and the Monte Carlo fallacy is going to continue in the only direction it can.