Skip to content

What's inside the newsletter from Connox

Sender
promotions@newsletter.connox.com
Sending platform
Brevo
Sector
Home & decor
Emails read
55 campaigns, 6 transactional
Period
August – October 2026

Our address was subscribed in August 2026, after the CNIL recommendation was published (April 14, 2026).

Overall score

The main finding

An open-tracking pixel is present on the last 3 campaigns.

It is the first of 16 points to fix. The highest score is deliverability (70/100), the lowest compliance (29/100), better than 7% of the 534 brands measured.

Monitor Connox See the 16 points

One email when a criterion changes state: the Pro version, in early access.

PDF
Share

Share this report

A single message, written by us. Their address is used for this message only and is not added to any list.

16 points to fix

Each line leads to the criterion in its family, with the excerpt that establishes it and how to fix it.

  1. Priority An open-tracking pixel is present Criterion “No open-tracking pixel” Compliance on the last 3 campaigns −30 pts out of 30 
    <img width="1" height="1" alt="" src="https://eu3-cdn.eng.bloomreach.com/***/e/…

    Brevo: open tracking is turned off in the campaign's advanced settings.

  2. Priority The HTML exceeds Gmail's clipping threshold Criterion “HTML under Gmail's clipping threshold” Technical on 45 of the 54 campaigns −20.8 pts out of 25

    Weight comes down by removing unused CSS, deleting duplicated hidden blocks (mobile and desktop versions of the same content), removing comments and Outlook conditional code that is no longer needed, and embedding no base64 images.

  3. To review No separate path to refuse tracking Criterion “The recipient keeps control over tracking” Compliance measured on 54 campaigns −19.3 pts out of 20

    A path separate from the unsubscribe link leads to a preference centre where the recipient can refuse tracking (opens, clicks) without unsubscribing.

  4. To review The template is nested beyond the threshold Criterion “A shallow template” Technical measured on 54 campaigns −16.7 pts out of 20
  5. To review Some links become invisible when images are blocked Criterion “All links stay visible with images blocked” Experience on 52 of the 54 campaigns −14.4 pts out of 15
  6. To review The published DMARC policy keeps out no impersonation Criterion “DMARC policy that helps keep out some impersonation” Deliverability on 52 of the 54 campaigns −14.4 pts out of 15
  7. To review Unsubscribing is not possible or not announced Criterion “Unsubscribing is possible and announced” Compliance measured on 54 campaigns −12.2 pts out of 15
  8. To review One-click unsubscribe is not announced as RFC 8058 defines it Criterion “One-click unsubscribe, as defined by RFC 8058” Deliverability measured on 54 campaigns −10 pts out of 15
  9. Secondary No untracked path leads to the site Criterion “An untracked path leads to the site” Compliance on 52 of the 54 campaigns −9.6 pts out of 10
  10. Secondary A remote stylesheet is called Criterion “No remote stylesheet” Technical on 52 of the 54 campaigns −9.6 pts out of 10
  11. Secondary Some tap targets are too small for a finger Criterion “Tap targets large enough” Experience on 52 of the 54 campaigns −9.6 pts out of 10
  12. Secondary The message puts obstacles in the way of assistive technology Criterion “The message stays readable with assistive technology” Experience measured on 54 campaigns −6 pts out of 20
  13. Secondary Some links lead nowhere Criterion “Every link leads somewhere” Technical on 20 of the 54 campaigns −3.7 pts out of 10
  14. Secondary The message reads poorly without its images or does not announce itself in the inbox Criterion “The message makes sense without its images, from the inbox on” Experience measured on 54 campaigns −0.7 pts out of 25
  15. Secondary The DKIM signature was not validated Criterion “DKIM signature validated” Deliverability on 2 of the 54 campaigns −0.7 pts out of 20
  16. Secondary The HTML shows formal deviations Criterion “Well-formed HTML” Technical measured on 54 campaigns −0.2 pts out of 15

8 criteria met, including « The message says who is writing and under which rules » and « DMARC alignment validated ». They are listed in their family, below.

Every send, at the time it arrived

One dot per message received by our subscription since August. Tap a dot to open it; the arrows move from one send to the next.

Technical reading of the send of Oct. 30, 2026 →

campaigns in 11 weeks
55
about 5 a week, from August to October
every day of the week
7 days a week
4 to 11 campaigns depending on the day
favourite sending hour
10 h
85% of campaigns arrive between 10:00 and 11:00
last send received
31 Oct.
« Neuheiten im Oktober 🍁 »
Pixel
Score
55 48 52 53 53

Campaign 55 of 55

Saturday 31 Oct., 10:14

Neuheiten im Oktober 🍁

Type
Marketing campaign
Score
analysis in progress
Pixel
—
View the preview Technical reading →

Sending day

  1. Mon.
  2. Tue.
  3. Wed.
  4. Thu.
  5. Fri.
  6. Sat.
  7. Sun.

Arrival time

3 changes observed since August

Each campaign is compared with the previous one, criterion by criterion.

15 Aug.

The detail of this change, criterion by criterion, is reserved for the Pro version.

confirmed by the next campaign · the per-send score goes from 55 to 48

12 Oct.

The detail of this change, criterion by criterion, is reserved for the Pro version.

confirmed by the next 5 campaigns · the per-send score goes from 48 to 52

20 Oct.

The detail of this change, criterion by criterion, is reserved for the Pro version.

confirmed by the next 8 campaigns · the per-send score goes from 52 to 53

See what changed, before and after Version Pro

Criteria in detail

The 24 criteria + 1 bonus

Met The criterion is verified on every email where it applied. Counts for its full weight in the score. Partly met The criterion is verified on only some of the emails; the detail says which. Counts in proportion to the emails where it is met. Not met The criterion is verified on none of the emails where it applied. Counts as zero, and its weight stays in the denominator. Not observable Nothing in the emails received allows a conclusion: the criterion leaves the denominator and is never counted as a failure. Leaves the denominator: listed, never counted as a failure.

Compliance

These checks cover what the send imposes on the recipient and what it leaves them: measurement of their behaviour, ways to leave, tracking of their objection.

Tracking pixels: the CNIL rule Method, Compliance family better than 7% of the 534 brands measured

The calculation · 29 pts out of 100

2 met · 3 partly met · 1 not met

30 15 20 15 10 10

Weight of each criterion in the score.

No open-tracking pixel Not met Open-tracking pixel detected on the last 3 campaigns 0/30 pts

0 points out of 30 — met on 0 of the last 3 campaigns.

An invisible image tells the sending platform that the message was opened, when, and from which device: this is individual tracking of reading behavior, and the recipient sees none of it. The message does not say whether they consented or objected — that choice lives in the sending platform, not in the email.

Served from bloomreach.com.

The excerpt that establishes it

<img width="1" height="1" alt="" src="https://eu3-cdn.eng.bloomreach.com/***/e/***.MSG7ODQrnSSmMg/open" style="display: none;">

How to fix it

Brevo: open tracking is turned off in the campaign's advanced settings. For transactional emails, the setting is in the account's SMTP settings.

Specific to brevo — not yet re-opened in the tool

Met when no tracking pixel is present. A single pixel is enough for the criterion not to be met on an email.

Unsubscribing is possible and announced Partly met Some of the ways to unsubscribe are missing — none of the 2 measures is met across all 54 campaigns 2.8/15 pts

2.8 points out of 15 — share of observations met across 54 campaigns.

How to fix it

The unsubscribe link goes in the body of the message, visible without excessive scrolling, and the List-Unsubscribe header is set in the sending settings of your email platform (“unsubscribe header”, “List-Unsubscribe header”). Most platforms add it by default; when it is missing, a transactional template or a direct SMTP send has dropped it.

An unsubscribe link does not increase unsubscribes: it replaces spam complaints, which weigh far more on the sender's reputation.

Met when the message announces unsubscribing in its headers, through a page rather than an email to write, and in its body. The detail says which of the two is missing. Not applicable to a transactional email.

What was measured — 0 met out of 2

  • No unsubscribe page announced in the header (36 of 54 campaigns concerned) Partly met
  • No unsubscribe link in the body (52 of 54 campaigns concerned) Partly met
The recipient keeps control over tracking Partly met No separate path to refuse tracking on the 52 campaigns concerned (1 of 2 measures met) 0.7/20 pts

0.7 points out of 20 — share of observations met across 54 campaigns.

How to fix it

A path separate from the unsubscribe link leads to a preference centre where the recipient can refuse tracking (opens, clicks) without unsubscribing. Most email platforms offer this page; otherwise it goes in the template footer, with its own link, named for what it does (“manage my preferences”, “refuse tracking”).

The page takes an afternoon to set up and then serves every send. It is what the CNIL recommendation expects from an email that measures how its readers behave.

Two measures: does the unsubscribe link go through a tracker, and does a separate path lead to a preference center or to refusing tracking? Neither establishes that a refusal succeeds — checking would require following the link, which would record a click on the sending platform's side. They describe the control left to the recipient, not the result they would get.

What was measured — 1 met out of 2

  • Untracked unsubscribe link on 2 campaigns Met
  • No separate path to refuse tracking on the 52 campaigns concerned Not met
  • CNIL 14/04/2026 · Postmetry
  • PM-PRIV-003
The message says who is writing and under which rules Met The message says who is writing and under which rules on 54 campaigns 15 pts

15 points out of 15 — share of observations met across 54 campaigns.

A commercial email must make it possible to identify the advertiser (CPCE, article L. 34-5), and the recipient must be able to know who processes their data. This indicator groups what a message can show of it.

What was measured — 3 met out of 3

  • The message names its sender on 54 campaigns Met
  • A reply to the message is possible on 54 campaigns Met
  • A link leads to the privacy policy on 54 campaigns Met
  • CPCE L. 34-5 · directive 2000/31 art. 6 · CAN-SPAM
  • PM-PRIV-004
An untracked path leads to the site Partly met Every link to the site goes through a tracker (52 of 54 campaigns concerned) 0.4/10 pts

0.4 points out of 10 — met on 2 of 54 campaigns concerned.

A recipient who simply wants to visit the site has no option but to go through the click counter.

How to fix it

At least one link in the message points directly to the brand's domain, without going through the platform's redirect domain: the logo, the legal notice or the privacy policy will do. In the editor this is set link by link (“do not track this link”, “disable click tracking”) or through an exclusion list in the account settings.

An untracked link does not count in measured clicks; choosing the logo or the footer takes nothing away from the clicks that matter.

Met when at least one link in the message leads to the brand's site without going through a click counter.

  • Postmetry
  • PM-PRIV-005
No recipient identifier in the message Met No recipient identifier in the message on 54 campaigns 10 pts

10 points out of 10 — met on 54 of 54 campaigns concerned.

Met when the recipient's address appears — neither in clear, nor encoded, nor hashed — in no URL and no proprietary header. Addressing headers do not count: they carry it by design.

  • Postmetry · RGPD art. 4 en repère
  • PM-PRIV-020

Deliverability

These checks read the authentication verdict set by our server when the message arrived. This verdict is dated by construction: we never recalculate it, which would query today's DNS rather than the DNS of the day the email was sent.

Gmail sender requirements Yahoo requirements Method, Deliverability family better than 2% of the 534 brands measured

The calculation · 60 pts out of 85, scaled to 100

3 met · 3 partly met

20 20 15 10 15 5

Weight of each criterion in the score.

DKIM signature validated Partly met DKIM signature failed (2 of 54 campaigns concerned) 19.3/20 pts

19.3 points out of 20 — met on 52 of 54 campaigns concerned.

How to fix it

DKIM signing is set up in the email platform (“domain authentication”): it provides a CNAME or TXT DNS record to publish on the sending domain, then checks the publication. A failure on a signed message most often comes from content changed after signing (a footer added by a gateway, rewritten links) or from a key removed from DNS.

Without a valid signature, Gmail and Yahoo have treated bulk mail as unauthenticated since 2024, and reject it or file it as spam.

Met when our receiving server validated the DKIM signature of the email.

DMARC alignment validated Met DMARC alignment verified on 54 campaigns 20 pts

20 points out of 20 — met on 54 of 54 campaigns concerned.

Met when the domain shown in the sender matches the one that authenticated the message.

DMARC policy that helps keep out some impersonation Partly met DMARC policy in observation only (52 of 54 campaigns concerned) 0.6/15 pts

0.6 points out of 15 — met on 2 of 54 campaigns concerned.

How to fix it

A _dmarc.<domain> TXT record declares the policy: v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:… at the very least, p=reject once the sending sources are aligned. The move happens in stages (p=none with reports, then quarantine, then reject) over a few weeks, reading the reports to find the tools that send on behalf of the domain.

A none policy prevents no spoofing of the domain; quarantine or reject closes the door and meets the Gmail and Yahoo requirements for bulk senders.

Met when the published policy is “reject” or “quarantine”. A “none” policy asks nothing of mail providers: it is published with no effect on messages that impersonate the domain.

No SPF failure Met No SPF failure on 54 campaigns 10 pts

10 points out of 10 — met on 54 of 54 campaigns concerned.

Met when SPF does not fail. An SPF “none” alongside a valid DKIM and DMARC is a common and legitimate configuration: it is not penalized.

One-click unsubscribe, as defined by RFC 8058 Partly met One-click unsubscribe missing or incomplete — none of the 2 measures is met across all 54 campaigns 5/15 pts

5 points out of 15 — share of observations met across 54 campaigns.

How to fix it

Two headers are added to every marketing send: List-Unsubscribe with an https URL, and List-Unsubscribe-Post: List-Unsubscribe=One-Click. Platforms that support them turn them on in the sending settings; the URL must accept a POST request and unsubscribe without an intermediate page.

Gmail and Yahoo have required it from bulk senders since 2024; it does not apply to transactional messages.

Met when the “List-Unsubscribe” header carries an https address and “List-Unsubscribe-Post” is exactly “List-Unsubscribe=One-Click”. This is what Gmail and Yahoo require of bulk senders: the mailbox's button then acts without opening a page. Not applicable to a transactional email.

What was measured — 0 met out of 2

  • The unsubscribe header carries no https address (36 of 54 campaigns concerned) Partly met
  • One-click unsubscribe not announced (36 of 54 campaigns concerned) Partly met
  • RFC 8058 · Gmail et Yahoo
  • PM-DELIV-005
A DKIM signature that covers what matters Met The DKIM signature covers what matters in the message on 52 campaigns 5 pts

5 points out of 5 — share of observations met across 52 campaigns.

What the signature covers, not only that it passes: an algorithm accepted by RFC 8301, the whole body signed, the From, Subject, Date and List-Unsubscribe headers signed, a signature not expired on receipt. Not applicable without a DKIM signature.

What was measured — 3 met out of 3

  • Accepted signing algorithm on 52 campaigns Met
  • Whole body signed on 52 campaigns Met
  • Essential headers signed on 52 campaigns Met
  • Signature valid on receipt Not applicable
  • RFC 6376 · RFC 8301
  • PM-DELIV-006

Technical

These checks cover what email clients actually do with the message: truncation, style blocks removed, resources never loaded. Each threshold states where it comes from: the documented behaviour of an email client, a specification, or our own method.

Support by email client (caniemail) Method, Technical family better than 2% of the 534 brands measured

The calculation · 34 pts out of 85, scaled to 100

1 met · 5 partly met

25 20 15 10 10 5

Weight of each criterion in the score.

HTML under Gmail's clipping threshold Partly met HTML over Gmail's clipping threshold (45 of 54 campaigns concerned) 4.2/25 pts

4.2 points out of 25 — met on 9 of 54 campaigns concerned.

How to fix it

Weight comes down by removing unused CSS, deleting duplicated hidden blocks (mobile and desktop versions of the same content), removing comments and Outlook conditional code that is no longer needed, and embedding no base64 images. Most editors show the HTML weight before sending.

Above 102 KB, Gmail clips the message and shows “View entire message”: the footer, the legal notices and the unsubscribe link drop out of the first read.

Met when the HTML part stays under 102 KB. Beyond that, Gmail cuts off the end of the message — and the end is where the unsubscribe link and the notices are.

  • Gmail
  • PM-TECH-001
A shallow template Partly met Layout tables nested beyond the threshold (45 of 54 campaigns concerned) (0 of 1 measures met) 3.3/20 pts

3.3 points out of 20 — share of observations met across 54 campaigns.

How to fix it

Flatten the template: one content block per table, placed directly in the main column, with no wrapper table around each section.

In a block-based editor, nesting usually comes from a section placed inside another, or a column inside a column. It is fixed once, in the template, not campaign by campaign.

The technical reading of the email gives the measured nesting and its threshold: it tells you when the fix has taken effect.

Met when layout tables are nested no more than 6 levels deep. Beyond that, the Word engine shared by desktop Outlook and the diverging clients each render the template their own way.

What was measured — 0 met out of 1

  • Layout tables nested beyond the threshold (45 of 54 campaigns concerned) Partly met
  • Postmetry
  • PM-TECH-002
Well-formed HTML Partly met The HTML shows formal deviations — 2 of 4 measures met 14.8/15 pts

14.8 points out of 15 — share of observations met across 54 campaigns.

How to fix it

Form errors (unclosed tags, duplicated attributes, invalid table/div nesting) come from blocks pasted between editors or from hand edits in the code. Run the HTML through a validator before sending, and fix it at the source in the template rather than in each campaign.

Malformed HTML renders differently from one email client to another, and it is the most common cause of a broken display in Outlook or on mobile.

A doctype, a character set declared in the document, balanced tags and unique identifiers. Each client repairs incomplete markup its own way, which is what makes rendering unpredictable. End tags that HTML makes optional do not count.

What was measured — 2 met out of 4

  • No doctype declared (2 of 54 campaigns concerned) Partly met
  • Character set declared in the HTML on 54 campaigns Met
  • Balanced tags on 54 campaigns Met
  • Repeated identifiers (1 of 54 campaigns concerned) Partly met
  • WHATWG
  • PM-TECH-030
Every link leads somewhere Partly met Some links lead nowhere (20 of 54 campaigns concerned) 6.3/10 pts

6.3 points out of 10 — met on 34 of 54 campaigns concerned.

How to fix it

Every link has an absolute https target; no href="#", no href="", no relative link and no mailto: without an address. Empty links most often come from a block copied from an earlier template, or from a button whose URL was never filled in in the editor.

An empty link loses the click and signals a message put together in a hurry; the fix is a review of the link list before sending, which most editors offer.

Met when no link is empty, reduced to “#” or written as “javascript:”. Such a link leads nowhere, and most clients neutralise it. Not applicable if the message contains no link.

  • Postmetry
  • PM-TECH-031
No remote stylesheet Partly met Remote stylesheet declared (52 of 54 campaigns concerned) 0.4/10 pts

0.4 points out of 10 — met on 2 of 54 campaigns concerned.

How to fix it

CSS rules go inside the message, in a <style> block or inline on the elements; no <link rel="stylesheet"> and no @import pointing to a server. Remote fonts are not counted here: most clients ignore them, but they break nothing.

Gmail, Outlook and most clients do not load a remote stylesheet: the message shows without its styles for most readers.

Met when the message calls no external stylesheet, through “link” or “@import”. Several clients never load them. A font stylesheet does not count: without it, the text falls back to another font.

The message follows the shape of an email Met The message follows the shape of an email on 54 campaigns 5 pts

5 points out of 5 — share of observations met across 54 campaigns.

Lines of 998 bytes at most, readable Message-ID and Date, a character set announced on every text part, a transfer encoding consistent with the content (RFC 5322, RFC 2045). Most servers tolerate these deviations, each in its own way.

What was measured — 5 met out of 5

  • Lines of 998 bytes at most on 54 campaigns Met
  • Well-formed Message-ID on 54 campaigns Met
  • Readable date on 54 campaigns Met
  • Character set announced on every text part on 54 campaigns Met
  • Consistent transfer encoding on 54 campaigns Met
  • RFC 5322 · RFC 2045
  • PM-TECH-010

Experience

Four questions about what becomes of the message once received: does it stay understandable, can the recipient still act, can a client render it, can a screen display it. Automatic detection only covers what is declared in the message.

WCAG 2.2 Method, Experience family better than 68% of the 534 brands measured

The calculation · 69 pts out of 100

2 met · 4 partly met · 1 bonus

25 15 15 10 20 15

Weight of each criterion in the score.

The message makes sense without its images, from the inbox on Partly met Preheader missing, too short or too long (3 of 54 campaigns concerned) (1 of 2 measures met) 24.3/25 pts

24.3 points out of 25 — share of observations met across 54 campaigns.

How to fix it

A preheader of 40 to 130 characters, in real text, follows the subject in the inbox; every meaningful image has an alt attribute that says what it shows; the main message is in text, not inside an image. In the editor, the preheader is a dedicated field, and the alt is filled in image by image.

Half of readers see the message without images when it first opens. An alt and a preheader take a minute per campaign.

Met when the message keeps at least 200 readable characters with images blocked, and a preheader of 40 to 130 characters announces it in the message list. Without a preheader, the inbox shows the first text of the body instead — often “View in browser”.

What was measured — 1 met out of 2

  • At least 200 characters remain readable with images blocked on 54 campaigns Met
  • Preheader missing, too short or too long (3 of 54 campaigns concerned) Partly met
  • Postmetry
  • PM-EXP-001
The message can be rendered outside HTML Met A text version renders the message on 54 campaigns 15 pts

15 points out of 15 — share of observations met across 54 campaigns.

Met when a text version comes with the email and carries the essentials: at least 60% of its text and 80% of its links. A client that does not display HTML falls back on it; reduced to “view the web version”, it renders nothing.

What was measured — 3 met out of 3

  • A plain-text version accompanies the message on 54 campaigns Met
  • The text version carries at least 60% of the text on 54 campaigns Met
  • The text version carries at least 80% of the links on 54 campaigns Met
  • Postmetry
  • PM-EXP-002
All links stay visible with images blocked Partly met Some links become invisible with images blocked (52 of 54 campaigns concerned) 0.6/15 pts

0.6 points out of 15 — met on 2 of 54 campaigns concerned.

How to fix it

Every important action (main button, unsubscribe) exists as text or as an HTML button, not only as a clickable image. For an image button, an alt that names the action and a background colour on the cell keep the area visible even without the image.

With images blocked, an image button becomes an empty rectangle: the reader does not know where to click.

Met when no link is carried by a single image without alternative text: such a link leaves nothing on screen. Not applicable if the message contains no links.

  • Postmetry
  • PM-EXP-003
Tap targets large enough Partly met Tap targets under the retained size (52 of 54 campaigns concerned) 0.4/10 pts

0.4 points out of 10 — met on 2 of 54 campaigns concerned.

How to fix it

Links and buttons are at least 24 px tall, with space between two neighbouring links; an HTML button (a table cell with background and padding) reaches that size without an image. Small footer links are separated by a line break rather than by a |.

On a phone, a target smaller than a finger gets missed or the tap lands next to it; 24 px is the WCAG 2.2 level AA minimum.

Met when no sized tap target falls below 24 px a side (WCAG 2.2, criterion 2.5.8). Only targets with a declared dimension are measured; the criterion's exceptions — a target within a line of text, sufficient spacing — are not. Not applicable if the message declares no dimensions.

The message stays readable with assistive technology Partly met The message puts obstacles in the way of assistive technology — none of the 4 measures is met across all 54 campaigns 14/20 pts

14 points out of 20 — share of observations met across 54 campaigns.

How to fix it

Four fixes, all in the template: declare the message language on the <html> tag (lang="en" for an email in English), describe each content image in its alt attribute, mark layout tables with role="presentation", and write links that say where they lead rather than “click here”.

The criterion detail shows which ones are missing from your emails; the others are already met.

A decorative image — divider, spacer — keeps an empty alt="": that is what keeps it silent, not an oversight.

Declared language, described content images, layout tables marked as such, link texts that say where they lead: what a screen reader needs to render the message. The detail says which of these measures is missing.

What was measured — 0 met out of 4

  • Message language not declared (2 of 54 campaigns concerned) Partly met
  • Some content images are not described (52 of 54 campaigns concerned) Partly met
  • Layout tables announced as data tables (2 of 54 campaigns concerned) Partly met
  • Some links do not say where they lead (9 of 54 campaigns concerned) Partly met
The message declares its adaptation to screens Met The message declares its adaptation to screens on 54 campaigns 15 pts

15 points out of 15 — share of observations met across 54 campaigns.

Met when the message declares its viewport and its adaptation to screen width. Without them, it displays on a phone at its original width, and is read by zooming and scrolling sideways.

What was measured — 2 met out of 2

  • Viewport declared on 54 campaigns Met
  • Adaptation to screen width declared on 54 campaigns Met
Dark mode declared Bonus point not earned The message does not declare its support for dark mode on the 54 campaigns concerned +0 pts

0 points out of 5 — met on 0 of 54 campaigns concerned.

Earned when the message declares color-scheme or a prefers-color-scheme rule. No standard requires it — clients that force dark mode invert the colors themselves — but declaring it leaves control to the template rather than to the mail client.

  • caniemail
  • PM-EXP-027

Findings outside scoring

Observed, not scored

These findings are not part of any score: their threshold has no citable source. They are still shown in full.

Every link in the message goes through a tracker

detected by the form of its address

Each click is recorded and tied to the recipient before being redirected. No link leads directly to the site: there is no way to visit the brand from this message without being measured.

The evidence — excerpt from your email 
https://eu3-cdn.eng.bloomreach.com/***/e/***.tYBf9hMm1aQWwg/click
https://eu3-cdn.eng.bloomreach.com/***/e/***/click
https://eu3-cdn.eng.bloomreach.com/***/e/***/click
Does this address really send Connox's emails? DKIM d=newsletter.connox.com · SPF pass · DKIM pass 52 of 54, not evaluated 2 of 54 · DMARC pass · 55 campaigns

Across 55 campaigns from Connox received at our addresses since August 2026:

From field
promotions@newsletter.connox.com · 53 of 55 shop@connox.de · 2 of 55
DKIM signing domain (d=)
newsletter.connox.com · 52 of 54
Verdict on receipt
SPF pass · 54 of 54 DKIM pass · 52 of 54, not evaluated · 2 of 54 DMARC pass · 54 of 54

The verdict is the one the receiving server wrote in the Authentication-Results header when the message arrived: it is read, never recomputed.

Verdict read on 54 of 55 emails: the others carry none we recognize, or their analysis is still to come.

These findings describe the emails received at our addresses. They say nothing about a message received elsewhere: the From field can be written freely, and only the headers of the message you received show the path it took.

Check a suspicious email →

Sector comparison

Home & decor — 88 brands with at least one campaign analyzed. The shares below are counted on them, never on the catalog.

88 brands analyzed in this sector Reserved for the Pro version

Reading notes

How to read this page

  1. A criterion that is not observable or not applicable leaves the calculation. It stays listed, never counted as zero: its weight leaves the denominator rather than weighing as a failure.

  2. Each line describes an observable finding, with the excerpt that establishes it. No legal qualification is ever attached to it.

  3. The measurements come from deterministic analyzers: the same message always gives the same result, and a disputed finding can be redone identically from the archive.

  4. Every share is published on an observed basis, and names it: “26 of 30 brands analyzed.” A brand with no email received enters no denominator.

  5. The deliverability score is borrowed: its verdict comes from the server that received the message. All the other families come from our own analyzers.

Does this analysis speak to you?

Let's go through it together, in 20 minutes.

We go over the 16 points with you, the evidence for each and the order in which to fix them. By video call, no commitment.

Pick a time slot Cal.com calendar

Or take it with you: the PDF report

Is this analysis useful to you?

One click, and you help us make it better.