Facebook uses bgsound to see if you have opened an email

Post by cousin_it » Mon, Mar 05, 2012, 12:42 AM UTC

mwexler wrote: post #36

huggyface wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but about 100% of email clients now don't load images -- whether webbugs or actual content -- because of that. This BGSOUND tactic certainly isn't standard practice, despite being an extension of a prior technique, extended specifically to get around the existing filter.

You don't list a source, but I'll propose a different stat. A survey in 2010 implied that only 33% of folks kept images on... but that's a wide jump from 100%. http://www.clickz.com/clickz/column/1716214/disabled-images-... Your point is right, that emailers are trying to get around the image blocking... But it's not that everyone turns off their images; some folks still keep them on. The question then becomes: what'…

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Mar 05, 2012, 1:03 AM UTC

aezell wrote: post #22

These sorts of tracking pixels or tracking items are long-standing methods of analytics gathering in the email marketing and delivery space. This is not an attack of privacy. They also know every click you make in that email as well. And of course they track the number of times you do these things. They also track that traffic anonymously if you forward the email to a third party who interacts with it. This is the sa…

Post by m0untain » Mon, Mar 05, 2012, 1:17 AM UTC

Post by Drbble » Mon, Mar 05, 2012, 1:26 AM UTC

mike-cardwell wrote: post #25

People don't expect that when they read an email, the sender knows when they read it and from what IP address. If you're using a tracking image or any similar technology, then you are exploiting a weakness in the system to take information that you don't have permission to. I recognise that it's standard industry practice, but it's categorically not ok. If you want to track users, ask for their permission. If you hav…

Post by icebraining » Mon, Mar 05, 2012, 1:30 AM UTC

ktizo wrote: post #49

tzs wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People turn on HTML in email because there is no other widely accepted alternative for rich text email. As for why plain text only is not good enough, here's a simple thought experiment. Imagine that we did not have any kind of email. We invented computers, and computer networks, but somehow, incredibly, overlooked inventing email. In this hypothetical world, people still communicate by writing letters, and sending t…

So, by the same logic, twitter should allow javascript to execute when I view some post about people microwaving small mammals. Perhaps I should be more explicit. My problem is not with the abilities to assign pixels to an output device. Email should not be an interactive proposition and should have no ability whatsoever to run code.