mailprogam choice, experience

Gullanian wrote: Maybe he means attachments?

Nope. Not attachments.

Images that are displayed inline are either pulled off a server (bad) or MIME encoded inside of the email (good). Images should be encoded inside of the message. When you open the email (from an email client, not web mail), you should see images displayed as:


The CID part you can read below the email in an encoded format.

Images that are ripped off of servers (lazy html) look like normal images on a web page. e.g.:


The size of the email then is very small because the images are not in the email, which is very cheap to send. e.g. A 2KB email vs. a 78KB email. Spammers like cheap...

Normal people would embed the images when sending email. So you can guess which emails get filtered by spam filters.

A lot of spam filters are just cheezy crap that don't work properly. They throw the baby out with the bathwater.  So if you actually want someone to receive your email reliably... You get the idea.

xeerex wrote: wrote: The size of the email then is very small because the images are not in the email, which is very cheap to send. e.g. A 2KB email vs. a 78KB email. Spammers like cheap... Normal people would embed the images when sending email. So you can guess which emails get filtered by spam filters. That's great. Like I want somebody sending me emails that have 15-20 images of 10-15KB each that are embedded so that my email is slowed down even more. What about dialup users? There are more reasons to NOT embed images than your suggestion of "being lazy". I personally have image display turned off in my email client. I don't send email to see images. I use it to convey text or send file attachements, which may include images. As a matter of fact, I don't put images in my newsletter. Straight text only with links to webpage articles if the reader needs to see images.

There is 1 OVERWHELMING reason to not embed images... It really looks like spam. A well designed email should make use of primarily HTML, then CSS, and a couple images, but not 15~20! That's complete insanity. My standard email template for business mails has 3 images totalling about 10k. 1 is a logo, 1 for branding, and 1 is a background image. The email is beautiful every time I send it. (Our designer is fg amazing! - He's also the guy responsible for the avatars I use.)

Spam filters work on a "points" system where emails earn (or are penanilzed with) spam points. Once it is over the "spam" threshold, it is flagged as spam. Here are some excellent ways to earn spam points:

• Use "lazy html" (it is a specific term that is commonly known) to hotlink images in email.
• Use a dynamic IP address
• Include flagged words in the subject line, e.g. free, sex, porn, credit, mortgage, etc.
• Send pure HTML emails with no text alternative
• Send email from a country or IP range that is blacklisted
• Have your SMTP server identify itself as a domain other than the "from" address, like "localhost.localdomain" - that's a really good one to get extra spam points.
• Send your email as a single image with no text or anything at all.
  
• Blah blah blah...

The point is that if you care about your email arriving, you should really try to avoid getting spam points.

Non-spam email campaigns should have 1 top priority - to build customer/client relations. This can't be done if your emails don't arrive.

Text emails are good, and I personally prefer text myself, but that isn't most people. The fact is that you do get better responses from HTML emails. People like flashy stuff/crap - how else can you explain the success of game shows, reality TV, infotainment like Access Hollywood, or hyponews like the American version of CNN (the international version actually conveys information)?  Flash and glitz are what people want, not intelligence, reflection, or valuable information. Depressing, isn't it?

Good post BF.