Stefan Palme schrieb:
On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 10:51 +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote:
Jeff schrieb:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Tony Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I want the From address to be set to something like [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A mail sent to this address will cause no error, but nobody will
read those emails.
That is a very very bad idea and the best way to have your server added to
many RBLs.
<snip>
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.
in rare cases , recipients may use sender verify ( which they shouldnt
do these days i.e it makes lot of unneeded smtp traffic , backscatter
and dont work with greylisting in the most cases ) so if you use a
not working/valid noreply@ mail address, mail will not reach
the recipient ( never use no existing domains with noreply@ cause this
will not work with most antispam solutions, never use domains you do not
own cause this leads loosing mail traffic to others ), so use a smtp
working noreply@ with your domains as sender address
but simply dont answer to mails going there, you may silent discard them
This is exactly the point of question me and Jeff are talking about:
It has been said by other posters, that using a sender address, that
is SMTP-valid (i.e. you can send emails to this address without error),
but silently discarded by the receiving server, is NOT a good practice
and will cause "bad reputation". Why?
-stefan-
Hi Stefan,
there is nothing you can do against people
writing/reply mails to adresses what ever, so i think
this problem is not really total solvable by
tec stuff , also there is less what you can do about
what people think about your reputation, so you better dont care
let noreply@ mails reach you in first case an see whats happening
if the mail amount is to high for human working with it
you may use kind of autoresponder that says mails will not be answered,
but if you do this you must have a strong antispam solution
before it, so that the responder does not answer to spam , faked
mails etc otherwise your autoresponder address will be anounced as
backscatter,spammer too, for sure silent discard is no gentle way
but it might be ok here, thats a question of taste, always prefer
reciving mails, but there are plenty of services out there
which sends mail you cant reply too, and it seems users can live with that
--
Best Regards
MfG Robert Schetterer
Germany/Munich/Bavaria
