upvote
Thanks — this is exactly the audience I built it for.

The cross-client rendering thing is why Templatical outputs MJML instead of raw HTML. MJML was built to abstract all the table-based, Outlook-2007-quirks, Gmail-strips-style nonsense — you write semantic blocks, MJML compiles to table HTML that works across every major email client. So when your marketing person moves a block or changes a button color, it doesn't silently break in Outlook two weeks later.

On sustainability — same concern. Even while I was building it, multiple times I caught myself asking "is this even worth theeffort? Maybe not with all the functionalities I've built, but someone could vibe-code a lightweight version of it in a day." But at the same time, I see and personally used SaaS products with the same or fewer features selling for $2,500/mo, which seems ridiculous.

I'm currently working on a subscription-based Cloud version, but only for things that actually need an infrastructure and backend: AI chat/rewrite, image-to-template conversion, MCP integration, hosted media gallery, saved modules, commenting, real-time collab, email testing, version history, etc. Sending stays your own provider — no per-contact, per-email, or per-delivery charges.

reply
Even when using mjml you must do render tests of your templates using litmus or a similar service. Mjml is WAY better than hand rolling templates but there are foot guns to be found and the docs won’t mention most of them https://github.com/mjmlio/mjml/issues/2927#issuecomment-2539....
reply
Totally agree on edge case quirks of MJML - or more like weird behaviors in Outlook. With so many email services and clients around, nothing can provide 100% bulletproof solution but I think MJML is as close as it gets to works-for-majority. I‘m sure MJML maintainers also aim for this.

Also, yes! Microsoft should kill Outlook with fire! :)

reply
I remember doing a MailChimp "clone" in Laravel some 12 years ago and implementing an email builder using their templates
reply