
A Clever Way to Tell Which of Your Emails Are Being Tracked - Libertatea
http://www.wired.com/2015/03/ugly-mail/
======
ryandvm
Uh... clever? I had to scroll back up and double-check the date to make sure
this article wasn't 10 years old.

Is the author not aware that for the last decade or so every email
program/service in the world prompts the user to load images to purposely
thwart image tracking?

~~~
kazinator
> _Is the author not aware that for the last decade or so every email program
> /service in the world prompts the user to load images to purposely thwart
> image tracking?_

While that is true, people say "yes" because things don't display properly.
Often elements like emoticons and whatnot are also remote images!

"Display remote images? Yes/No" is an all or nothing proposition, in other
words.

The e-mail client, rather, should determine which images will display in a
visible way and reject all others even if the users says Yes. It should not
fetch images whose tags don't specify a width or height, or that specify one
less than 16x16 pixels, and those that are positioned such that they will be
clipped, or clipped by something else, so that even if filled with fetched
content, they will not be visible. Basically: calculate the set of image tags
that refer to images which will be obviously visible to the user. Prompt for
those, and do not fetch the rest regardless of the answer.

~~~
jerf
At least recent versions of Thunderbird do allow domain-by-domain loading.

Of course, the standard user has no idea what that means, how to judge where
the email comes from, or what any of the options mean beyond "see the pretty
pictures", but, hey, one step at a time.

------
mike-cardwell
This is where I usually jump in and mention a web app I wrote:

[https://emailprivacytester.com/](https://emailprivacytester.com/)

Sends an email to you which checks to see how much stuff your email client is
leaking. Turns out some email clients load remote content even before you
click "Load Remote Images"

~~~
aembleton
Thank-you. I didn't realise until I tried your tool that gmail is leaking out
the fact that I'd opened an email. It runs through a proxy but it is still
possible for it to uniquely identify that the email has been opened.

~~~
aembleton
Just noticed that under Settings > General > Images it is possible to turn off
the loading of external images. That fixed it, no longer is it loading the
images up.

~~~
metasean
I have a lot of privacy concerns about what Google itself does with my data,
but I do like knowing that they help prevent others from surreptitiously
gathering data.

------
rlpb
Any email client that permits this to happen automatically is user hostile. I
really hope that Gmail doesn't do this by default.

But I use mutt, so I'm not worried. If I really have to read an HTML-only
email, I have mutt configured to pass the HTML to links for rendering, but in
a way that links runs confined and without access to the Internet (or anything
else) in order to do so[1].

It's been a few years now, and I don't feel I've really missed anything by
going back to a text-mode email client. By being able to optionally render
HTML as text, I can still read the occasional HTML-only email that I need to
(for example: order confirmations). The rest of the time, plain text works
just fine.

[1] [http://www.justgohome.co.uk/blog/2014/02/mailcap-html-
apparm...](http://www.justgohome.co.uk/blog/2014/02/mailcap-html-
apparmor.html)

~~~
gcr
Are you sure Mutt's not doing this?

I read my mail with Emacs, but according to
[https://emailprivacytester.com/](https://emailprivacytester.com/) , when I
click on a message, Emacs parses the HTML and inserts images into the buffer.
This is default behavior with the `notmuch` mail reader

EDIT: Chat with dkg on the #notmuch IRC channel shows there's a patch to fix
this that isn't in a release quite yet.

My point: Be careful, even if you're using a "dumb" mail client! :)

~~~
wampus
A typical Mutt configuration relies on the entry for text/html in ~/.mailcap.
It's quite common to use lynx for rendering, as in the following:

    
    
        text/html; lynx -dump %s; nametemplate=%s.html; copiousoutput
    

Since lynx doesn't load images, that would be safe from this kind of tracking.
But another configuration using a different renderer might allow it.

Furthermore, it is also possible to prefer the plaintext version of an email
if there's a choice. From my ~/.muttrc:

    
    
        alternative_order text/plain text text/html
    

I can't remember ever being put out by not being able to read messages that
fetch images from the web. Even if I have to open a URL, I do it in Firefox,
where I run RequestPolicy.

~~~
gcr
Are you sure lynx doesn't fetch _any_ external resources? Some text-mode
browsers (I forget if elinks or w3m does this) fetches external CSS by default
so they can attempt to render fonts on the the 16-color terminal. :)

The "right" way of doing this (calling lynx in a network-restricted
cgroup/chroot/container) sounds like a pain.

~~~
wampus
Lynx doesn't support images, CSS or script. It does support cookies and
redirects (by default it prompts for both). Basically, it renders the bare
HTML of the page you open, without fetching external resources. If you find it
behaves differently, make sure your lynx command isn't actually symlinked to
links (or another text browser with graphical/enhanced capabilities).

------
daddykotex
Isn't Gmail serving image from it's own proxies acting as a protection against
this kind of snooping?

In my understanding, opening the image loads the image from Google servers so
it never hits the tracking website...

Am I right?

~~~
mike-cardwell
It still leaks whether or not you viewed the email and what time, even if it
doesn't leak the IP you came from.

Also of note: Fastmail also uses proxies in this fashion too now.

~~~
pyre
> what time

Not necessarily. Does Google cache the image when receiving the email, or when
you view it?

~~~
mike-cardwell
Google only fetches the image when you first view it. At least it did when I
tested it when they first started doing it.

~~~
talkingquickly
That still seems to be the behaviour, so it still works for open tracking just
not the additional meta data. Fantastic tool you've created by the way!

------
peacefool
It's not a clever way, it's primitive, and does not monitor many advertising
agencies (just 3 of them).

The clever way would be to discover ALL advertisers AND prevent spying on our
emails.

------
omgitstom
I've always had these assumptions:

If you open an html email, you are being tracked.

If you click on a link in an email, you are being tracked (plain text / html)

Is there any email clients someone can recommend that force plain text in
multipart emails? Or convert html emails to be viewed as plain text if the
email isn't multipart?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
mutt?

kmail used to be hugely anti html in emails so they may have more options than
most for avoiding it.

In thunderbird, which is my current MUA, you can choose View > Message Body As
... > Plaintext and it will display everything it can in plaintext. There's
also Simplified HTML and Original HTML as options.

> _convert html emails to be viewed as plain text if the email isn 't
> multipart?_ //

Not sure if that's what thunderbird is doing but it appears to be (if I send a
HTML-only email to myself the thunderbird will display it as plaintext).

------
de_Selby
I just installed he extension and it seemed to give a few false alarms. One
email chain with just a few acquaintances mailing back and forth was flagged.

------
ArekDymalski
"Ugly" "sneaky" "disturbing" "unsettling". The article's author made quite an
effort to present a a long-established (and _relatively_ harmless) practice as
a horrible thing. What is funny in the era of really disturbing practices in
invading our privacy.

~~~
mike-cardwell
If companies sent letters, which when opened, silently and without your
knowledge sent a signal home to tell them that the letter delivered to your
house had just been opened, would that be "harmless"?

Personally, I would consider it, ugly, sneaky, disturbing and unsettling. But
then it's ok on the Internet because this sort of tracking is easy on the
Internet right?

~~~
ArekDymalski
Let's stretch the analogy a bit further. If the company representative is
talking to me face to face and watching my reactions (Do I hear? Do I
understand?) is that unsettling? Do people cover their faces when they are in
a shop/bank? No, it's a natural part of the communication.

Email is just a form of communication. I believe, ut's not that harmless that
someone received the confirmation that his message was opened. Of course
things get a bit complicated when someone gets too much information, but
simple opening emails/clicking links is something we should accept. When we
are walking down the street hundreds of people see us, see what we do. Most
people do not have a problem with that. I really can't understand what is so
different in case of online activity, despite the fact that we are familiar
with other people seeing us in real world and the Interent is still a mentally
new territory for us. And this distinction between the off- and online privacy
is something what actually can inhibit the development of online society imho.

~~~
mike-cardwell
This is all down to what the user _expects_. When the user is having a face to
face conversation with somebody, they _expect_ and _accept_ that person will
be able to look at them and note their facial expressions and what they're
saying. When somebody is sat at home opening a letter or an email, they don't
expect the sender to know that they're doing it. Yes, many geeks understand
that the sender will be able to see that they're doing it, but the average
non-geek does not understand this.

~~~
ArekDymalski
Yes, you're absolutely right. However, I believe that the proper direction is
to change the people's expectations towards "I'm aware that typical consumer
technology doesn't offer me anonymity, just like I can't expect to be
anonymous/invisible on the street with typical behavior" instead of luring
them into the illusion that the internet is some completely separate
world.Off- and on-line will interweave more and more and society should adjust
their expectations accordingly.

------
makmanalp
It's "Yesware" \- sloppy. This has been done for years and years such that
it's pretty much common practice with any service that sends email now. And
any half-decent mail client asks you before loading external resources. I
guess it'd be nice if they specified why it matters.

------
throwawayaway
as much as i'd like another "don't be evil" "debate" gmail shouldn't work like
that.

[http://gmailblog.blogspot.ie/2013/12/images-now-
showing.html](http://gmailblog.blogspot.ie/2013/12/images-now-showing.html)

correct me if I'm wrong, but the tagging support page is for "creative pages"
with doubleclick, not emails:

[https://support.google.com/dfp_premium/answer/1347585?hl=en](https://support.google.com/dfp_premium/answer/1347585?hl=en)

EDIT: ok well, turns out i'm wrong and here's how to turn off automatic image
loading

[http://now.avg.com/disable-gmail-automatic-image-
load/](http://now.avg.com/disable-gmail-automatic-image-load/)

------
mrottenkolber
> Specifically, they know when you’ve opened an email sent by one of their
> clients, where you are, what sort of device you’re on, and whether you’ve
> clicked a link, all without your awareness or consent.

No they don't, I don't do HTML mail.

------
corbet
Weird. HTML message viewing in claws-mail refuses outright to load external
images without an explicit request from the user. I have no idea why anybody
would want or implement behavior different than that...?

~~~
ptaffs
you do, it's because the big companies who write e-mail clients that the bulk
of the population use, the same companies also are involved with advertising.
There's no big money behind building a good quality privacy enabling e-mail
client, or browser.

------
unusximmortalis
the simplest (and also spartan) way to protect yourself is to set your email
reader to not show pictures. so you read your emails without pictures and then
you explicitly allow pictures for those emails you trust (from family,
friends, etc.)

"every action IS a reaction"

------
benihana
Let me save you the trouble of even using the tool:

Yep, every email sent from a company to you for marketing purposes has a
beacon and link tracking.

If you're alarmed by this, you should also know that every website you visit
can track your IP, your OS and version, and your browser and version.

~~~
binxbolling
I think the real value is in seeing who's tracking that you wouldn't expect.
Yes, most know that marketers are tracking the hell out of us, but there may
be use cases that many are not aware of.

