6 ms·
Consider this @codeflo: 1. Google may cache all images in all emails sent to gmail.com instantly and regardless of the existence of the address. This would rem
by MrClean 13y ago
Consider this @codeflo:
1. Google may cache all images in all emails sent to gmail.com instantly and regardless of the existence of the address. This would remove the possibility for marketers to check user timestamp, remove user data from request and hide user email existence.
2. Google does _not_ need to save each image from each unique URL separately, all they need to do is fetch each image and check against an already existing (mega)array of images they've fetched. This greatly reduces storage needed, but doesn't do much for the bandwidth requirement, but they won't care about bandwidth in all their Googleness.
3. The single most important aspect of this change has been omitted in the article, and in your comment: This change completely eliminates the risk of CSRF attacks by spammers and the likes. CSRF attacks are still number 8 on OWASPs list of top 10 attacks.
My three cents ;)
- j_s 13y agoAlso, no more cookies that were set when loading those images
- cstrat 13y agoI thought that 99% of the images included in emails for tracking purposes are single pixel transparent GIFs - so no biggie in working out which ones those are...
- martin-adams 13y agoThen they switch to two-pixel transparent GIFs as a workaround.
- cstrat 13y agogod damn marketing geniuses.
- vidarh 13y agoIn the e-mail campaigns we send every image is a tracking image. It all just goes into our log files an is then post-processed, so the additional cost of processing every image is minimal compared to the rest of the cost of the send. Using a separate tracking pixel is pointless unless you for some reason want to let some third party track the opens (which some people might, e.g. to prove certain open rates)