[mwexler]

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's the best way to block tracking pixels while still allowing consumers to experience attractive emails if they wish?

[cousin_it]

Can't you attach the images to the email, and reference them from the HTML? If that doesn't work, you can send a PDF or Word file.

Putting img tags that link to your server doesn't sound like a very good way to get attractive emails anyway. What if your server goes down? What if the user disconnects from the internet before reading their inbox? What if the user rereads your message after several years and it's suddenly not so attractive anymore?

[mwexler]

The problem with attachments is that you increase the bandwidth on the sender. So, instead of, say, the sender spending 2k bandwidth per mail and each recpient another 60k on bandwidth to get images when opened, the sender pays for all that extra imagery bytes. It may shift the cost in a way you prefer, but it also slows down the send so users may not get their mails in a reasonable time, and may not appreciate the larger mails filling up their boxes.

There is also the issue with referencing the inline images, though I've been told that it's not such a big deal (I've never tried it myself).

As for the "going down", most reputable email vendors have pretty well done image servers, for this very reason. But yes, if the user disconnects, the images won't be available. But same with the web site that the email is linked to, so users couldn't necessarily click for more info either.

But commercial emails usually aren't designed to be saved and re-referenced like mails from friends. Instead, they expect to be read while online, and either reacted to quickly or discarded. I guess it's similar to the mindset with paper mail.

Too bad there isn't more effort on making better mails that don't rely on images but instead make better experiences... instead of better tracking tech.

[icebraining]

The problem with attachments is that you increase the bandwidth on the sender. So, instead of, say, the sender spending 2k bandwidth per mail and each recpient another 60k on bandwidth to get images when opened, the sender pays for all that extra imagery bytes.

But wouldn't the sender have to serve the images over HTTP anyway? Unless you expect a big percentage of those emails to never be opened, but then I have to wonder if you should be sending them in the first place.

[mwexler]

Yeah, not everyone opens the mail, so the recipient shouldn't have to deal with the larger download (and the sender doesn't have to send a larger mail), and also, the opens are more distributed over time (for the most part, depending on when you send and to whom), so you can send the smaller mails faster but have a more even distribution of bandwidth as the opens occur across a longer period.