> why do you not want those people to have the information they need to refine and improve these emails
Well, it comes at the expense of 1) making things slower for me and 2) making it more difficult to discern phishing emails from legitimate ones. I also find it difficult to believe that all of this analytics is actually doing much to inform me about things I care about.
> Would you be happy if the email just doesn't show up or gets shunted to spam?
It's unfortuate, but I would understand it if it happend. I certainly hope most phishing emails would end up in my spam.
That is a valid reason, but I suspect the extra delay of 2x your ping when you click on a link and wait for it's target to load is fairly negligible for most people.
> 2) making it more difficult to discern phishing emails from legitimate ones
You shouldn't be relying on link text to discern phishing emails, that is what the client checking SPF records and the user checking the contents of the url bar are for.
> I also find it difficult to believe that all of this analytics is actually doing much to inform me about things I care about.
Why is that? I would think it is pretty obvious how A/B testing click-through rates for emails could easily help make those emails more informative and easier to use.
If the speed cost and privacy loss is not worth it to you, having the actual (non-tracked) URL available in the link text atleast gives users the option to opt out of that tracking.
Well, it comes at the expense of 1) making things slower for me and 2) making it more difficult to discern phishing emails from legitimate ones. I also find it difficult to believe that all of this analytics is actually doing much to inform me about things I care about.
> Would you be happy if the email just doesn't show up or gets shunted to spam?
It's unfortuate, but I would understand it if it happend. I certainly hope most phishing emails would end up in my spam.