Skip to content

What's inside the newsletter from Veepee

Sender
newsletter@news.veepee.fr
Sector
General
Emails read
81 campaigns, 1 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 10 points to fix. The highest score is deliverability (99/100), the lowest compliance (60/100), better than 90% of the 534 brands measured.

Monitor Veepee See the 10 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.

10 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 src="https://tr.veepee.com/***/media/***?urlName=***&amp;urlId=***&amp;url…

    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 80 campaigns −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 No plain-text version accompanies the message Criterion “The message can be rendered outside HTML” Experience measured on 80 campaigns −15 pts out of 15

    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”.

  4. To review No untracked path leads to the site Criterion “An untracked path leads to the site” Compliance on all 80 campaigns −10 pts out of 10
  5. To review Some links lead nowhere Criterion “Every link leads somewhere” Technical on all 80 campaigns −10 pts out of 10
  6. 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 80 campaigns −0.9 pts out of 25
  7. Secondary Some links become invisible when images are blocked Criterion “All links stay visible with images blocked” Experience on 5 of the 80 campaigns −0.9 pts out of 15
  8. Secondary The DKIM signature was not validated Criterion “DKIM signature validated” Deliverability on 1 of the 80 campaigns −0.2 pts out of 20
  9. Secondary DMARC alignment was not validated Criterion “DMARC alignment validated” Deliverability on 1 of the 80 campaigns −0.2 pts out of 20
  10. Secondary The published DMARC policy keeps out no impersonation Criterion “DMARC policy that helps keep out some impersonation” Deliverability on 1 of the 80 campaigns −0.2 pts out of 15

14 criteria met, including « The recipient keeps control over tracking » and « One-click unsubscribe, as defined by RFC 8058 ». 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
81
about 7.4 a week, from August to October
every day of the week
7 days a week
10 to 13 campaigns depending on the day
favourite sending hour
7 h
59% of campaigns arrive between 7:00 and 8:00
last send received
31 Oct.
« Aujourd'hui : On Running, Nn.07, Nike et Jordan Kids et 22 a… »
Pixel
Score
72 77 77

Campaign 81 of 81

Saturday 31 Oct., 9:22

Aujourd'hui : On Running, Nn.07, Nike et Jordan Kids et 22 autres ventes sur Veepee

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

1 change observed since August

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

18 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 72 to 77

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 90% of the 534 brands measured

The calculation · 60 pts out of 100

4 met · 2 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 veepee.com.

The excerpt that establishes it

<img src="https://tr.veepee.com/***/media/***?urlName=***&amp;urlId=***&amp;urlPosition=***&amp;utm_content=***&amp;campaignId=***&amp;messageId=***&amp;executionId=***&amp;memberId=***&amp;siteId=***&amp;channel=***&amp;utm_source=***&amp;utm_medium=***&amp;utm_campaign=***

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 80 campaigns 15 pts

15 points out of 15 — share of observations met across 80 campaigns.

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 80 campaigns Met
  • Unsubscribe link in the body on 80 campaigns Met
The recipient keeps control over tracking Met The recipient keeps control over tracking on 80 campaigns 20 pts

20 points out of 20 — share of observations met across 80 campaigns.

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 — 2 met out of 2

  • Untracked unsubscribe link on 80 campaigns Met
  • A separate path leads to a preference center or to refusing tracking on 80 campaigns 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 80 campaigns 15 pts

15 points out of 15 — share of observations met across 80 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 80 campaigns Met
  • A reply to the message is possible on 80 campaigns Met
  • A link leads to the privacy policy on 80 campaigns 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 80 campaigns concerned 0/10 pts

0 points out of 10 — met on 0 of 80 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 80 campaigns 10 pts

10 points out of 10 — met on 80 of 80 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 44% of the 534 brands measured

The calculation · 84 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 (1 of 80 campaigns concerned) 19.8/20 pts

19.8 points out of 20 — met on 79 of 80 campaigns concerned.

The signature that guarantees the message was not altered in transit was not validated. The recipient has no way to verify that the message really comes from the brand.

The excerpt that establishes it

dkim=temperror

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 Partly met DMARC alignment failed (1 of 80 campaigns concerned) 19.8/20 pts

19.8 points out of 20 — met on 79 of 80 campaigns concerned.

The domain shown in the sender does not match the one that authenticated the message. This is the mechanism that protects the recipient from impersonation of the brand.

The excerpt that establishes it

dmarc=temperror

How to fix it

The signing domain (DKIM d=) or the envelope domain (SPF, Return-Path) must be the domain of the From address or one of its subdomains. In the email platform, this means authenticating the sending domain itself rather than using the platform's shared domain, and turning on the “custom Return-Path” when the option exists.

Alignment is what DMARC checks: without it, a published DMARC policy gets your own mail rejected.

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 (1 of 80 campaigns concerned) 14.8/15 pts

14.8 points out of 15 — met on 79 of 80 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 80 campaigns 10 pts

10 points out of 10 — met on 80 of 80 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 Met One-click unsubscribe as defined by RFC 8058 on 80 campaigns 15 pts

15 points out of 15 — share of observations met across 80 campaigns.

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 — 2 met out of 2

  • The unsubscribe header carries an https address on 80 campaigns Met
  • One-click unsubscribe announced on 80 campaigns 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 80 campaigns 5 pts

5 points out of 5 — share of observations met across 80 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 80 campaigns Met
  • Whole body signed on 80 campaigns Met
  • Essential headers signed on 80 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 72% of the 534 brands measured

The calculation · 75 pts out of 85, scaled to 100

5 met · 1 not 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 80 campaigns 25 pts

25 points out of 25 — met on 80 of 80 campaigns 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 80 campaigns 20 pts

20 points out of 20 — share of observations met across 80 campaigns.

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 80 campaigns Met
  • Postmetry
  • PM-TECH-002
Well-formed HTML Met Well-formed HTML on 80 campaigns 15 pts

15 points out of 15 — share of observations met across 80 campaigns.

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 — 4 met out of 4

  • Doctype declared on 80 campaigns Met
  • Character set declared in the HTML on 80 campaigns Met
  • Balanced tags on 80 campaigns Met
  • Unique identifiers on 80 campaigns Met
  • WHATWG
  • PM-TECH-030
Every link leads somewhere Not met Some links lead nowhere on the 80 campaigns concerned 0/10 pts

0 points out of 10 — met on 0 of 80 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 Met No remote stylesheet on 80 campaigns 10 pts

10 points out of 10 — met on 80 of 80 campaigns 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 80 campaigns 5 pts

5 points out of 5 — share of observations met across 80 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 80 campaigns Met
  • Well-formed Message-ID on 80 campaigns Met
  • Readable date on 80 campaigns Met
  • Character set announced on every text part on 80 campaigns Met
  • Consistent transfer encoding on 80 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 52% of the 534 brands measured

The calculation · 63 pts out of 100

2 met · 2 partly 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 Partly met Preheader missing, too short or too long (6 of 80 campaigns concerned) (1 of 2 measures met) 24.1/25 pts

24.1 points out of 25 — share of observations met across 80 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 80 campaigns Met
  • Preheader missing, too short or too long (6 of 80 campaigns concerned) Partly met
  • Postmetry
  • PM-EXP-001
The message can be rendered outside HTML Not met No plain-text version accompanies the message on the 80 campaigns concerned (0 of 1 measures met) 0/15 pts

0 points out of 15 — share of observations met across 80 campaigns.

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 80 campaigns 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 Partly met Some links become invisible with images blocked (5 of 80 campaigns concerned) 14.1/15 pts

14.1 points out of 15 — met on 75 of 80 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 Met Tap targets of sufficient size on 80 campaigns 10 pts

10 points out of 10 — met on 80 of 80 campaigns 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 80 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 on the 80 campaigns concerned Not met
  • Some content images are not described on the 80 campaigns concerned Not met
  • Layout tables announced as data tables on the 80 campaigns concerned Not met
  • Some links do not say where they lead on the 80 campaigns concerned Not met
The message declares its adaptation to screens Met The message declares its adaptation to screens on 80 campaigns 15 pts

15 points out of 15 — share of observations met across 80 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 80 campaigns Met
  • Adaptation to screen width declared on 80 campaigns Met
Dark mode declared Bonus point not earned The message does not declare its support for dark mode on the 80 campaigns concerned +0 pts

0 points out of 5 — met on 0 of 80 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
Does this address really send Veepee's emails? DKIM d=news.veepee.fr · SPF pass · DKIM pass 79 of 80, fail 1 of 80 · DMARC pass 79 of 80, fail 1 of 80 · 81 campaigns

Across 81 campaigns from Veepee received at our addresses since August 2026:

From field
newsletter@news.veepee.fr · 81 of 81
DKIM signing domain (d=)
news.veepee.fr · 79 of 80
Verdict on receipt
SPF pass · 80 of 80 DKIM pass · 79 of 80, fail · 1 of 80 DMARC pass · 79 of 80, fail · 1 of 80

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 80 of 81 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

General — 17 brands with at least one campaign analyzed. The shares below are counted on them, never on the catalog.

17 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 10 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.