Jeff wrote:
I'm afraid I don't see how sending mail with an unmonitored return
address (i.e., accepted and delivered locally to /dev/null) will get
you on an RBL. I get mail of that type from big companies all the
time. They usually have something in the message that explains that
you should not reply and that replies will not be read. Could someone
expand on the RBL comment?
We have reason to do this for messages that provide automated
information but are not intended to start a dialogue with the
customer. Why is this wrong? It seems to be a rather common practice.
It is good practice to manage bounces. you can't simply keep sending
mail to an address that bounces systematically.
It is also good practice to give the recipient a chance to contact you
if needed (Foo Bar wants to unsubscribe, change the subscribed address,
complain about content he found offensive, ... etc).
A simple approach is to use something like this
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "The FooBar thing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Do not reply to this message" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This way,
- automatic bounces go to a special address. so you can detect problems
and possibly take action (sometimes, you can't detect the address that
causes the bounce. in this case, you need VERP)
- luser replies will go to Dave Null (noreply)
- but still, people can reach you by using the From: address. (You could
use the Sender: header for this but not all MUAs show this and not all
people can find it...)
of course, some MUAs will reply to the "From:" address, but this is rare
enough.
Alternatively, use a [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the From (no need for
Reply-To then) but don't discard mail here. instead, setup an
auto-responder to inform the user that his mail won't be read and that
he should contact foobar-support or this or that. Of course, you should
not auto-respond blindly: check that the sender is in your lists, and
follow the recommendations that apply to auto-responders (do not reply
to bulk, junk, auto submitted mail, ... etc).
