Have been using Cerberus since 2016 for responsive emails with no issues:
Can I Email: ‘Can I Use’ for email
81–90 of 206 posts
Re: Can I Email: ‘Can I Use’ for email
#82hi good days
Re: Can I Email: ‘Can I Use’ for email
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s so stupid. If AMP emai ever became a thing, every single non google email client would just fetch and store the contents of the AMP page the moment an AMP email arrives. So what was the point of it?
Not so sure about that, not downloading anything extra and only showing what is embedded in the email is one of the good things with using an email client. Using AMP email is back to thinking tracking pixels works in emails
If the content isn't inline, perhaps it's better to have the mail server fetch it when the email is received, so that the sender can't track whether you are reading it.
This has been discussed before with regard to external links to images. I think that always made sense, but it makes even more sense to do this when the core content is external. Then fetching it would be just another part of the SMTP/HTTP transaction sequence to deliver a mail.
Re: Can I Email: ‘Can I Use’ for email
#84It might be interesting to include "pine" and "mutt" as well, as a baseline of mail clients that do not support HTML out of the box. (At least with mutt you can set it up to automatically render HTML emails via "w3m") More importantly, though, I convinced all mail clients I use to just show plain text when viewing and writing my emails. Often there are HTML emails in which I do not see all the content, or content at…
I use Gnus in Emacs as my email client. I've got it set up to render plain text if available, but if the mail is only HTML, it will fallback to use Emacs' shr (Simple HTML Render) library. It's basic support, but works well enough most of the time to make the mail readable. Worse comes to the worse, I just open the HTML in a web browser. If I get to that stage, it's almost always spam or something else not worth reading.
Re: Can I Email: ‘Can I Use’ for email
#85Why using plain text is better:
- readable under any mail client and any text editor
- smaller size files
- safer
- better accessibility and compatibility with screen readers
Re: Can I Email: ‘Can I Use’ for email
#86CSS in email clients is a mess. Like IE6 on steroids. I switched to a Windows on my work laptop about 6 months ago, and the native Win 10 email client is probably the worst offender out there. Even the popular mailing lists (like IH, PH, etc) are completely broken to the point of unreadable in Windows 10 Mail. Mailchimp has a pretty good guides on how to create cross-compatible layouts: https://templates.mailchimp.co…
From what I remember outlook uses the word rendering engine. Writing any kind of layout that works on all email clients is absolute hell. For most complex layouts it seems most companies just send it as an image with the text being the only other element
As someone who builds email regularly for Outlook - table based layouts work best, if you want to be fancy one could do some fancy VML stuff.
Re: Can I Email: ‘Can I Use’ for email
#87Learn about email related information networks
Re: Can I Email: ‘Can I Use’ for email
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not so sure about that, not downloading anything extra and only showing what is embedded in the email is one of the good things with using an email client. Using AMP email is back to thinking tracking pixels works in emails
If the content isn't inline, perhaps it's better to have the mail server fetch it when the email is received, so that the sender can't track whether you are reading it. This has been discussed before with regard to external links to images. I think that always made sense, but it makes even more sense to do this when the core content is external. Then fetching it would be just another part of the SMTP/HTTP transaction…
Exactly. If most mail clients downloaded it automatically upon receipt instead of on view then the tracking benefits get diluted to the point of uselessness.
(Actually, thinking further it would have to be done server side to avoid leaking your personal IP. For a webmail provider that’s obviously straightforward, while IMAP servers could be extended to automatically replace AMP email directives with a static HTML attachment.)
Re: Can I Email: ‘Can I Use’ for email
#89It would be really nice to have a small and simple markup language, say some markdown standard, to be the layouting language for E-Mails. No (external) images, just links, lists, headings, basic formatting. HTML E-Mails are a security nightmare, even if "only" CSS is "allowed" and JS/iframes/external images are not loaded.
No markdown, but we had success with this one: https://mjml.io/ Try out the online examples.
Wow, that's pretty cool, what's the consistency across different clients like?
Having email rendered consistently across many email clients was the main reason we stayed with Mail Chimp for so long...
Re: Can I Email: ‘Can I Use’ for email
#90This is good! I have searched for this actually. However this seems to lack the most important thing (for me): the global usage percentage of a particular feature, which is the #1 deciding factor whether to use a HTML/CSS feature or not.
I think that would be difficult to calculate accurately. We can collect user-agent statistics from browsers but mail clients don't have an equivalent when reading mail.
A number of email clients will add a header line that identifies them to every email that's sent.