How respected were you in an email?

Firstly, how did you get the email?

The sender failed to be clear about the intent of the message, leaving recipient(s) to invent their own interpretation(s).

The sender sent an email with a message that could have been communicated shortly but was communicated with a very long email.

The sender sent an email with enough missing details to raise more questions than answered.

Sender chooses to email his/her recipient with attacks, rather than engaging in conversation.

The sender attacks the person more than the issue at hand. (ad hominem fallacy)

The sender replies to your previous email changing the subject dramatically and irrelevantly. (red herring fallacy)

And finally, how much was the issue(s) at hand addressed?