Both of the mail clients I use, Outlook at work and Gmail for personal, strip images out of HTML email... I think most mail clients are doing this now. So, why do people continue to send HTML emails that depend on images?
I got this today from a vendor that I've given permission to email me:
There was no text in the email, just links to pictures.
In todays world of limited attention, why assume that people are going to be able to view your communication?
Why not have some metrics in place that show who on the mailing list actually download the email - if they don't download the images, switch to a non-HTML version the next go around and offer them the ability to get the HTML version back?
So neither of your mail clients block images but allow you to download them? I guess I'm fortunate in using Entourage.
Posted by: Rich Hauck | June 25, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Rich, both of my mail clients block images, and forces me to download them. Actually, my third mail client, my iPhone, just grabs the images and fully renders HTML email... graphics and all.
I don't want the images and am glad that my mail clients block them. My point is that given so many people using Outlook and Gmail, why do people depend on their message coming through correctly via images?
Jon
Posted by: Jon Strande | June 26, 2008 at 05:48 AM
I have been using Claws email client on a Nokia N800 Internet Tablet for about a year and found it very customizable. I allow it to populate HTML emails with images directly. I'm not a cautious about the trojan images on the NIT as I would be with another system. It's just far enough outside of the normal world to allow me to do this. I also use spam assassin on my smtp MTA and custom filters built in Claws to minimize junk. It's still not as good as the spam filtering that Google has by default. This is just another slightly skewed vision of the electronic world. Please don't take me seriously
Posted by: Michael Hahn | June 26, 2008 at 08:43 AM