4 ms·

> we can send unique message content to each recipient of an email while still having recipients believe they are receiving the same message So you know that p

> we can send unique message content to each recipient of an email while still having recipients believe they are receiving the same message So you know that people don't like receiving personalized messages that are tracked and yet you are proud that you have devised a way to shovel them down their throats anyways. Good stuff. (edit) I would've not minded if this were purely technical post on how you set things up, but the way its edited at the moment just reeks of disrespect towards those on a receiving end of your emails.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
disbelief 13y ago
The emails would be personalized and tracked regardless, all that this does is improve the tracking by identifying which recipient opened the message instead of a more general "email was opened" tracking event. It's not exactly trickery, just creative use of SMTP commands. Also, it still relies on a tracking pixel, which as usual won't work if the recipient has images disabled in their email client.
- mike-cardwell 13y ago
  "which recipient opened the message" and: The times they opened it, where they were when they opened it, and what operating system and user agents they were using when they opened it.
  - philfreo 13y ago
    All of those things are possible with any simple tracking pixel anyway. The only difference here is being able to distinguish specific recipients from a multi-recipient email.
    - mike-cardwell 13y ago
      If you visit a website and that website gleans this information about you, that is one thing. If you simply receive an email and read it, and the sender can glean the same information, that is something entirely different.
      - philfreo 13y ago
        Tracking pixels in emails have been around for many years and are used by almost everybody. That's why many email clients block images by default.
        mike-cardwell 13y ago
        That is not an argument for doing it. As I wrote sarcastically in the other thread on this page: "Oh, but everyone does it, so it's ok right?"

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

disbelief 13y ago

The emails would be personalized and tracked regardless, all that this does is improve the tracking by identifying which recipient opened the message instead of a more general "email was opened" tracking event. It's not exactly trickery, just creative use of SMTP commands. Also, it still relies on a tracking pixel, which as usual won't work if the recipient has images disabled in their email client.

mike-cardwell 13y ago
"which recipient opened the message" and: The times they opened it, where they were when they opened it, and what operating system and user agents they were using when they opened it.
- philfreo 13y ago
  All of those things are possible with any simple tracking pixel anyway. The only difference here is being able to distinguish specific recipients from a multi-recipient email.
  - mike-cardwell 13y ago
    If you visit a website and that website gleans this information about you, that is one thing. If you simply receive an email and read it, and the sender can glean the same information, that is something entirely different.
    - philfreo 13y ago
      Tracking pixels in emails have been around for many years and are used by almost everybody. That's why many email clients block images by default.
      - mike-cardwell 13y ago
        That is not an argument for doing it. As I wrote sarcastically in the other thread on this page: "Oh, but everyone does it, so it's ok right?"