What's inside the newsletter from Rue du Commerce
- Sender
- nepasrepondre@rueducommerce.fr
- Sector
- High-tech & electronics
- Emails read
- 1 campaign, 1 transactional
- Period
- October 2026
Our address received its first email in October 2026, after the CNIL recommendation was published (April 14, 2026).
Overall scoreThe main finding
An open-tracking pixel is present on 1 campaign.
It is the first of 10 points to fix. The highest score is technical (96/100), the lowest compliance (12/100), better than 0% of the 503 brands measured.
One email when a criterion changes state: the Pro version, in early access.
Share
Share this report
October 2026 · calculated on 24 October
10 points to fix
Each line leads to the criterion in its family, with the excerpt that establishes it and how to fix it.
-
Priority
An open-tracking pixel is present
Criterion “No open-tracking pixel”
Compliance
on 1 campaign
−30 pts
out of 30 in
Compliance
<img height="0" width="0" alt="" src="https://t.mailing.rueducommerce.fr/r/?id=…
Open tracking is turned off in the tracking settings, at the campaign or account level.
-
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 in
Experience
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”.
-
Priority
The recipient has no control over tracking
Criterion “The recipient keeps control over tracking”
Compliance
measured on 1 campaign
−20 pts
out of 20 in
Compliance
A path separate from the unsubscribe link leads to a preference centre where the recipient can refuse tracking (opens, clicks) without unsubscribing.
- Priority The recipient's address is written into the message Criterion “No recipient identifier in the message” Compliance on 1 campaign −10 pts out of 10 in Compliance
- 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 1 campaign −15 pts out of 15 in Deliverability
- To review No plain-text version accompanies the message Criterion “The message can be rendered outside HTML” Experience measured on 1 campaign −15 pts out of 15 in Experience
- To review No untracked path leads to the site Criterion “An untracked path leads to the site” Compliance on 1 campaign −10 pts out of 10 in Compliance
- To review The message does not say who is writing or under which rules Criterion “The message says who is writing and under which rules” Compliance measured on 1 campaign −10 pts out of 15 in Compliance
- Secondary No unsubscribe page announced in the header Criterion “Unsubscribing is possible and announced” Compliance measured on 1 campaign −7.5 pts out of 15 in Compliance
- Secondary Tags left open or closed without opening Criterion “Well-formed HTML” Technical measured on 1 campaign −3.8 pts out of 15 in Technical
14 criteria met, including « DKIM signature validated » and « HTML under Gmail's clipping threshold ». 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
- 6 h – 7 h
- 1 of the 1 campaigns
- last send received
- 23 Oct.
- « On a trouvé 30 idées pour Noël »
Campaign 1 of 1
Friday 23 Oct., 6:46
On a trouvé 30 idées pour Noël
- Type
- Marketing campaign
- Score
- 56 / 100
- Pixel
- Present, detected by its size
Sending day
- Mon.
- Tue.
- Wed.
- Thu.
- Fri.
- Sat.
- 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
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.
The calculation · 12 pts out of 100
2 partly met · 4 not met
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 rueducommerce.fr.
The excerpt that establishes it
<img height="0" width="0" alt="" src="https://t.mailing.rueducommerce.fr/r/?id=***,8c56c5c6,1">
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.
- CNIL 14/04/2026 · LIL art. 82
- PM-PRIV-001
- The detection rule
- Loi Informatique et Libertés, article 82
- CNIL, délibération n° 2026-042 du 12 mars 2026, publiée au JO le 14 avril 2026 — champ d'application
- CNIL, foire aux questions du 22 juillet 2026
- CNIL, délibération n° 2026-042 du 12 mars 2026, publiée au JO le 14 avril 2026 — retrait du consentement
Unsubscribing is possible and announced Partly met No unsubscribe page announced in the header 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
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 — 1 met out of 2
- No unsubscribe page announced in the header on the only campaign concerned Not met
- Unsubscribe link in the body on a single campaign Met
- RFC 2369
- PM-PRIV-002
- RFC 2369 — The Use of URLs as Meta-Syntax for Core Mail List Commands
The recipient keeps control over tracking Not met The recipient has no control over tracking — none of the 2 measures is met 0/20 pts
0 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 — 0 met out of 2
- Tracked unsubscribe link on the only campaign concerned Not 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 Partly met The message does not say under which rules the data is processed — 1 of 3 measures met 5/15 pts
5 points out of 15 — share of observations met across 1 campaign.
How to fix it
The footer of the message names the sender (company name, postal address) and links to its privacy policy with a direct link to the website, not through a tracking domain. These details go once into the base template and then appear in every send.
Nothing to lose: these lines already exist on the website; they only need to be carried over.
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 — 1 met out of 3
- The message names its sender on a single campaign Met
- No address allows a reply to the message on the only campaign concerned Not met
- No link leads to the privacy policy on the only campaign concerned Not met
- CPCE L. 34-5 · directive 2000/31 art. 6 · CAN-SPAM
- PM-PRIV-004
An untracked path leads to the site Not met Every link to the site goes through a tracker on the only campaign concerned 0/10 pts
0 points out of 10 — met on 0 of 1 campaign 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 Not met The recipient's address is written into the message on the only campaign concerned 0/10 pts
0 points out of 10 — met on 0 of 1 campaign concerned.
Base64-encoded or hashed, it is still the address: a hash is recovered by hashing a list of known addresses. Placed in a URL or a header, it travels wherever the message goes — redirect server logs, analytics tools, browser history.
The excerpt that establishes it
href adresse:md5
How to fix it
Links carry no email address, contact identifier or automatic login token in their parameters. In the email platform, these come from merge variables inserted into URLs (?email={{contact.email}}, ?uid=…): remove them from the template's links, and turn off login-by-link if it is offered.
The platform still identifies the recipient for tracked clicks; what changes is that the address no longer travels in clear to the website, its analytics and its partners.
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.
The calculation · 70 pts out of 85, scaled to 100
5 met · 1 not met
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.
- RFC 6376 · RFC 8601
- PM-DELIV-001
- RFC 6376 — DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures
- RFC 8601 — Message Header Field for Indicating Message Authentication Status
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.
- RFC 9989
- PM-DELIV-002
- RFC 9989 — Domain-Based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC)
DMARC policy that helps keep out some impersonation Met Active DMARC policy on a single campaign 15 pts
15 points out of 15 — met on 1 of 1 campaign concerned.
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.
- RFC 9989 §4.7
- PM-DELIV-003
- RFC 9989 — section 4.7, “p” tag
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.
- RFC 7208
- PM-DELIV-004
- RFC 7208 — Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email
One-click unsubscribe, as defined by RFC 8058 Not met One-click unsubscribe missing or incomplete — none of the 2 measures is met 0/15 pts
0 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 — 0 met out of 2
- The unsubscribe header carries no https address on the only campaign concerned Not 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.
The calculation · 82 pts out of 85, scaled to 100
5 met · 1 partly met
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 Tags left open or closed without opening 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
- Tags left open or closed without opening on the only campaign concerned Not met
- Unique identifiers on a single campaign 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.
- caniemail
- PM-TECH-020
- <link> in an email — support by client
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.
The calculation · 65 pts out of 100
4 met · 2 not met · 1 bonus
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 Not met No plain-text version accompanies the message on the only campaign concerned (0 of 1 measures met) 0/15 pts
0 points out of 15 — share of observations met across 1 campaign.
How to fix it
The text version (text/plain) comes with the HTML and carries the content and the links, not just a sentence saying “open this message in your browser”. Email platforms generate it from the HTML when the option is on (“auto-generate plain text”).
This is the version that watches, screen readers and some business clients read; spam filters also use it, comparing the two versions.
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 — 0 met out of 1
- No plain-text version accompanies the message on the only campaign concerned Not met
- The text version carries the message's text Not applicable
- The text version carries the message's links Not applicable
- Postmetry
- PM-EXP-002
All links stay visible with images blocked Met All links stay visible with images blocked on a single campaign 15 pts
15 points out of 15 — met on 1 of 1 campaign concerned.
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.
- WCAG 2.2 — 2.5.8
- PM-EXP-004
- WCAG 2.2 — Target Size (Minimum), success criterion 2.5.8, level AA
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
- W3C
- PM-EXP-026
- CSS Device Adaptation — the viewport tag
- Media Queries Level 4
Dark mode declared Bonus point not earned The message does not declare its support for dark mode on the only campaign concerned +0 pts
0 points out of 5 — met on 0 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
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
recognized by a tracking subdomain under the brand's name
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://t.mailing.rueducommerce.fr/r/?id=***,8c56c5c6,8c5edaf2
Sector comparison
High-tech & electronics — 28 brands with at least one campaign analyzed. The shares below are counted on them, never on the catalog.
Reading notes
How to read this page
-
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.
-
Each line describes an observable finding, with the excerpt that establishes it. No legal qualification is ever attached to it.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 10 points with you, the evidence for each and the order in which to fix them. By video call, no commitment.
Or take it with you: the PDF report