Live data from Hacker News

Caniemail.com – like caniuse but for email content

caniemail.com

181–190 of 263 posts

Re: Caniemail.com – like caniuse but for email content

#181
post #174

Nice to find privacy leaking clients: https://www.caniemail.com/features/css-pseudo-class-visited/

How would this be privacy leaking? Wouldn't only the email viewer be able to see the result of using :visited?

You could just load a different (invisible) background image based on the visited state to send out a ping.

Re: Caniemail.com – like caniuse but for email content

#183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Plain text content is the best content. Hard disagree. Things like bolding text, adding pictures, changing colors, etc are very important for the emails I send. So some amount of HTML is important to me.

RTF would be fine, then.

Yes, it would be. It is a pity HTML won over RTF.

Re: Caniemail.com – like caniuse but for email content

#184
post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If plain text would support inline-images, I’d probably be okay with it. But it doesn’t, so I’m not. I also generally prefer structured formatting to plain text.

They say an image is worth 1000 words. If you're sending emails with thousands of words you have probably chosen the wrong medium.

And sometimes 22 can already be too many.

Re: Caniemail.com – like caniuse but for email content

#185
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Markdown gives most people >95% of the formatting they want to do. It's easy and fairly intuitive to write (most of it, anyway). It's easy to read in different formats and ways (HTML, plain text). It doesn't add highly complex rendering issues. I've worked on two email clients in the last ten years, and the amount of weird HTML some send is just bonkers. Is in emails crazy? Yes. Do you need to deal with it? Also yes.

The point is: markdown is HTML, not something else.

Is C amd64 assembly then?

Re: Caniemail.com – like caniuse but for email content

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. It is used to let us know which HTML elements/features/etc are supported by different browsers/versions

It doesn't say that. It merely says this thing is like another undescribed thing. At first I thought it was some kind of service for dog owners, until I noticed the missing N. So... that left no explanation.

An undescribed but very famous thing among the readers of HN.

Re: Caniemail.com – like caniuse but for email content

#187

I wish there was something like BrowserStack but you send a test email and it shows you how it renders on tons of different email clients on various platforms. It wouldn't work for web-based email like Gmail but it would still be useful.

There are quite a few tools that literally do exactly what you’re asking for.

Re: Caniemail.com – like caniuse but for email content

#188

What an excellent resource! (And yes Outlook is a pain and supports so very little!) We've tried building email templates for notifications for our apps where I work, and it has typically been a pain. We have since swapped to using mjml ( https://mjml.io/ ) to build the templates, and it's working wonders. The output seems the be the most compatible with all different devices that we've tested on. The other tool we e…

MJML is easily the best tool of its kind and I use it a lot. If anyone is trying to build emails in 2024, it's a major shortcut that helps avoid and mitigate some of HTML email’s biggest headaches.

It can quite quickly lead to clipping in gmail if you’re not careful though.

Re: Caniemail.com – like caniuse but for email content

#189
post #182

IMO, HTML was the worst thing that ever happened to email. Plain text content is the best content.

Worst thing is spam. Second worst is silos by big players to fight spam, which makes it hard to run your own email server. Then comes HTML.

Making it hard to run your own server seems to be a small price to pay to ensure billions of inboxes don’t get overly spammed.

Re: Caniemail.com – like caniuse but for email content

#190
post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worst thing is spam. Second worst is silos by big players to fight spam, which makes it hard to run your own email server. Then comes HTML.

Making it hard to run your own server seems to be a small price to pay to ensure billions of inboxes don’t get overly spammed.

It's not like many spammers are using SPF and DKIM. And then you have google sending bounce emails to spam although they already know with SPF that the original mail came from somewhere else making them the spammers.
Post reply on HN