Skip to content

What's inside the newsletter from Miu Miu

Sender
miumiu@email.miumiu.com
Sector
Luxury
Emails read
1 campaign
Period
October 2026

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

Overall score

The main finding

An open-tracking pixel is present on 1 campaign.

It is the first of 7 points to fix. The highest score is technical (96/100), the lowest compliance (60/100), better than 91% of the 503 brands measured.

Monitor Miu Miu See the 7 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.

7 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 1 campaign −30 pts out of 30 
    <img src="https://data.email.miumiu.com/ee/***/open?params=***

    Open tracking is turned off in the tracking settings, at the campaign or account level.

  2. Priority The message puts obstacles in the way of assistive technology Criterion “The message stays readable with assistive technology” Experience measured on 1 campaign −20 pts out of 20

    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”.

  3. To review Some links become invisible when images are blocked Criterion “All links stay visible with images blocked” Experience on 1 campaign −15 pts out of 15

    Every important action (main button, unsubscribe) exists as text or as an HTML button, not only as a clickable image.

  4. To review The published DMARC policy keeps out no impersonation Criterion “DMARC policy that helps keep out some impersonation” Deliverability on 1 campaign −15 pts out of 15
  5. To review No separate path to refuse tracking Criterion “The recipient keeps control over tracking” Compliance measured on 1 campaign −10 pts out of 20
  6. Secondary One-click unsubscribe not announced Criterion “One-click unsubscribe, as defined by RFC 8058” Deliverability measured on 1 campaign −7.5 pts out of 15
  7. Secondary Repeated identifiers Criterion “Well-formed HTML” Technical measured on 1 campaign −3.8 pts out of 15

17 criteria met, including « Unsubscribing is possible and announced » and « DKIM signature validated ». They are listed in their family, below.

Every send, at the time it arrived

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

Technical reading of the send of Oct. 23, 2026 →

campaign in 1 week
1
about one a week, in October
sending day
No fixed day
Friday leads, 1 of the 1 campaigns
arrival window
12 h – 13 h
1 of the 1 campaigns
last send received
23 Oct.
« Geste de Consolation »
Pixel
Score
72

Campaign 1 of 1

Friday 23 Oct., 12:33

Geste de Consolation

Type
Marketing campaign
Score
72 / 100
Pixel
Present, detected by the form of its address
View the preview Technical reading →

Sending day

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

Arrival time

No change observed since October

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

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 91% of the 503 brands measured

The calculation · 60 pts out of 100

4 met · 1 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 only campaign concerned 0/30 pts

0 points out of 30 — met on 0 of 1 campaign concerned.

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 miumiu.com.

The excerpt that establishes it

<img src="https://data.email.miumiu.com/ee/***/open?params=***

How to fix it

Open tracking is turned off in the tracking settings, at the campaign or account level. Look for “open tracking”.

Turning it off loses the open rate — a measure already largely distorted by mailbox privacy protections, which preload images — and changes nothing about the click rate.

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 Met Unsubscribing is announced, in the header and in the body on a single campaign 15 pts

15 points out of 15 — share of observations met across 1 campaign.

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 — 2 met out of 2

  • Unsubscribe announced in the header, through a page on a single campaign Met
  • Unsubscribe link in the body on a single campaign Met
The recipient keeps control over tracking Partly met No separate path to refuse tracking on the only campaign concerned (1 of 2 measures met) 10/20 pts

10 points out of 20 — share of observations met across 1 campaign.

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 a single campaign Met
  • No separate path to refuse tracking on the only campaign 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 a single campaign 15 pts

15 points out of 15 — share of observations met across 1 campaign.

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 a single campaign Met
  • A reply to the message is possible on a single campaign Met
  • A link leads to the privacy policy on a single campaign Met
  • CPCE L. 34-5 · directive 2000/31 art. 6 · CAN-SPAM
  • PM-PRIV-004
An untracked path leads to the site Met An untracked path leads to the site on a single campaign 10 pts

10 points out of 10 — met on 1 of 1 campaign concerned.

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 a single campaign 10 pts

10 points out of 10 — met on 1 of 1 campaign 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 3% of the 503 brands measured

The calculation · 63 pts out of 85, scaled to 100

4 met · 1 partly met · 1 not met

20 20 15 10 15 5

Weight of each criterion in the score.

DKIM signature validated Met Valid DKIM signature on a single campaign 20 pts

20 points out of 20 — met on 1 of 1 campaign concerned.

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

DMARC alignment validated Met DMARC alignment verified on a single campaign 20 pts

20 points out of 20 — met on 1 of 1 campaign concerned.

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

DMARC policy that helps keep out some impersonation Not met DMARC policy in observation only on the only campaign concerned 0/15 pts

0 points out of 15 — met on 0 of 1 campaign 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 a single campaign 10 pts

10 points out of 10 — met on 1 of 1 campaign 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 not announced on the only campaign concerned (1 of 2 measures met) 7.5/15 pts

7.5 points out of 15 — share of observations met across 1 campaign.

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 — 1 met out of 2

  • The unsubscribe header carries an https address on a single campaign Met
  • One-click unsubscribe not announced on the only campaign concerned Not 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 a single campaign 5 pts

5 points out of 5 — share of observations met across 1 campaign.

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 a single campaign Met
  • Whole body signed on a single campaign Met
  • Essential headers signed on a single campaign 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 84% of the 503 brands measured

The calculation · 82 pts out of 85, scaled to 100

5 met · 1 partly met

25 20 15 10 10 5

Weight of each criterion in the score.

HTML under Gmail's clipping threshold Met HTML under Gmail's clipping threshold on a single campaign 25 pts

25 points out of 25 — met on 1 of 1 campaign concerned.

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 Met Shallow template on a single campaign 20 pts

20 points out of 20 — share of observations met across 1 campaign.

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 — 1 met out of 1

  • Lightly nested layout tables on a single campaign Met
  • Postmetry
  • PM-TECH-002
Well-formed HTML Partly met Repeated identifiers on the only campaign concerned (3 of 4 measures met) 11.2/15 pts

11.2 points out of 15 — share of observations met across 1 campaign.

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 — 3 met out of 4

  • Doctype declared on a single campaign Met
  • Character set declared in the HTML on a single campaign Met
  • Balanced tags on a single campaign Met
  • Repeated identifiers on the only campaign concerned Not met
  • WHATWG
  • PM-TECH-030
Every link leads somewhere Met Every link leads somewhere on a single campaign 10 pts

10 points out of 10 — met on 1 of 1 campaign concerned.

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 Met No remote stylesheet on a single campaign 10 pts

10 points out of 10 — met on 1 of 1 campaign concerned.

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 a single campaign 5 pts

5 points out of 5 — share of observations met across 1 campaign.

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 a single campaign Met
  • Well-formed Message-ID on a single campaign Met
  • Readable date on a single campaign Met
  • Character set announced on every text part on a single campaign Met
  • Consistent transfer encoding on a single campaign 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 70% of the 503 brands measured

The calculation · 70 pts out of 100

4 met · 2 not 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 Met The message reads without its images and announces itself in the inbox on a single campaign 25 pts

25 points out of 25 — share of observations met across 1 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 — 2 met out of 2

  • At least 200 characters remain readable with images blocked on a single campaign Met
  • Preheader of 40 to 130 characters on a single campaign Met
  • Postmetry
  • PM-EXP-001
The message can be rendered outside HTML Met A text version renders the message on a single campaign 15 pts

15 points out of 15 — share of observations met across 1 campaign.

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 a single campaign Met
  • The text version carries at least 60% of the text on a single campaign Met
  • The text version carries at least 80% of the links on a single campaign Met
  • Postmetry
  • PM-EXP-002
All links stay visible with images blocked Not met Some links become invisible with images blocked on the only campaign concerned 0/15 pts

0 points out of 15 — met on 0 of 1 campaign 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 Met Tap targets of sufficient size on a single campaign 10 pts

10 points out of 10 — met on 1 of 1 campaign concerned.

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 Not met The message puts obstacles in the way of assistive technology — none of the 4 measures is met 0/20 pts

0 points out of 20 — share of observations met across 1 campaign.

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 on the only campaign concerned Not met
  • Some content images are not described on the only campaign concerned Not met
  • Layout tables announced as data tables on the only campaign concerned Not met
  • Some links do not say where they lead on the only campaign concerned Not met
The message declares its adaptation to screens Met The message declares its adaptation to screens on a single campaign 15 pts

15 points out of 15 — share of observations met across 1 campaign.

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 a single campaign Met
  • Adaptation to screen width declared on a single campaign Met
Dark mode declared Bonus point earned The message declares its support for dark mode on a single campaign +5 pts

5 points out of 5 — met on 1 of 1 campaign 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

Sector comparison

Luxury — 70 brands with at least one campaign analyzed. The shares below are counted on them, never on the catalog.

70 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 7 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.