Page 1 of 1

Embedded Images vs Remote Images (and tracking)

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 8:23 pm
by EoN
Hi all,

There's an issue I've been pondering for the past few months regarding "Embedded images" vs "Remote images".

I'm sure everyone is aware of the old remote image hack (often a 1px transparent gif image), where an image is linked to a script on the server, so for example, an embedded image in an email might be something like (conceptually):

Code: Select all

 
<img src="http://server.com/log_email_opened_successfully.php?recipient_email=thisperson@blah.com" alt="" />
 
So that when the email is opened, the client renders the image, and the server is able to register that the user has opened the email, which no doubt is useful tracking information.

However, this method is as old as ths hills, and many say it's long forgotten as it's immediately recognisable by spam filters etc as an unethical/spam technique, and will probably get listed as spam or maybe even blacklisted?

There is some discussion on the topic in this thread: return-receipt 1pxl img hack

But on thinking about it, I realised that Embedded images these days ARE HIDDEN by default in all modern email clients. That is to say, when opening an email with embedded images, the email client will show a msg of something like "messages have been hidden for your security, click here to display".

So if that's the case that email clients are hiding embedded images. Then is there any real reason to NOT use remote images any more? If clients are going to hide BOTH techniques, then I'm wondering, why NOT use remote!?

I guess the question comes down to, what are the consequences of using the remote image tracking technique? Is it ONLY trapped by email clients? Or is it marked as spam on servers? Will it cause domain to be blacklisted? etc? Anyone have any useful info on this topic?

Cheers!

EoN

Re: Embedded Images vs Remote Images (and tracking)

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:56 am
by Chris Corbyn
I've still never seen a client which hides embedded images :? I've used a lot of mail clients too. I'd love to know what you're using ;)

By the way, a 1px transparent GIF is probably a terrible idea compared to just using a company logo or something which at leasts looks like a genuine image :)

I doubt using the technique will get you blacklisted (especially if you stop using something as weird as a transparent 1px GIF) but it could be trapped by spam filters.

I'm no expert on the topic and spam filters are constantly changing and all have their own ways of doing things (i.e. SpamAssassin is regex based, DSPAM uses AI, Gmail does something only known to itself, Hotmail is like Gmail, some services have humans read the quarantine/deliver the messages... etc).

Re: Embedded Images vs Remote Images (and tracking)

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:33 am
by onion2k
Emails are basically untrackable now. Even if you can get a tracking image into the mail, get it through spam filters, and the email client at the other end displays the email, 90% of the time the images won't be downloaded until the user clicks a "Display Images" button. Most of the time users won't do that. Using tracking links in the email that record which are clicked and then forward the user to a particular page won't work very well either because users are learning not to click links in emails due to phishing.

The only thing left that I can think of (and I use) is giving the user an email or user specific discount code that they enter at the checkout on one of my sites. Obviously that'll only work for applications where the user actively participates, if the site is more static you're screwed, you can't accurately track anything.

I give it maybe a year or two and then the email marketing industry will start to die a slow death. Noone will pay for advertising they can't see working.

Re: Embedded Images vs Remote Images (and tracking)

Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:56 am
by EoN
Chris Corbyn wrote:I've still never seen a client which hides embedded images :? I've used a lot of mail clients too. I'd love to know what you're using ;)
Some people still seem to say this, but I think you'll find ALL new clients hide embedded images the same way they hide remote images now. The following email clients, when I test, DO HIDE embedded images by default (until you click 'display images') :
  • * Outlook 2007
    * Hotmail (Windows Live) (Displays the message: " Attachments, pictures, and links in this message have been blocked for your safety. Show Content.")
    * Gmail (Displays the message: "Images are not displayed. Display Images below")
    * Yahoo
So that already covers a huge majority of the market! What email clients are you using that DON'T hide embedded images by default? :)
Chris Corbyn wrote:By the way, a 1px transparent GIF is probably a terrible idea compared to just using a company logo or something which at leasts looks like a genuine image :)
100% agree.

onion2k wrote:Emails are basically untrackable now. Even if you can get a tracking image into the mail, get it through spam filters, and the email client at the other end displays the email, 90% of the time the images won't be downloaded until the user clicks a "Display Images" button. Most of the time users won't do that.
That is exacly my point, onion2k. What I'm saying here, is that all modern email clients appear to hide *BOTH* embedded *AND* remote images until the user clicks a "Display Images" button. Test it yourself! So now I'm wondering, if the user has to click "display images" regardless of which method you're using. Why not use remote, and get the benefit of tracking?

Re the other methods, with links or codes, my particular system simply uses emails to advice people of something they can come to download (something they'll actually want and have subscribed to - not just cold spamming), so I can already tell the unique visitor who's clicked on the link in the email. But I'm curios to know if people are opening the email but not clicking :)

Note that I had given up on the tracking, but this whole thing about email clients hiding embedded images too - made me revisit it.

Re: Embedded Images vs Remote Images (and tracking)

Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:58 am
by Chris Corbyn
Could you post a code example of what you're calling embedded images please? It really does not sound as if those images were embedded inside the email and more like they were being downloaded from a remote server. I use the very latest clients all the time and I do not get that warning (which coincidentally sounds the same as the remote images warning) :)

Seriously, you should be fine to embed images.

I'll even send you an email from Swift with an embedded image if you give me your email address via PM ;)

EDIT | Put it this way, if embedded images caused warning about security, so would attachments since they ARE attachments.