5 ms·

It was a reasonable decision by Eastlink. There is convention that email addresses of the form 'noreply@xxxxx.yyy' are company notifications and there is possib

It was a reasonable decision by Eastlink. There is convention that email addresses of the form 'noreply@xxxxx.yyy' are company notifications and there is possibility of confusion. Bad luck for the customer.

mercurysmessage 9y ago
Yea, reasonable, but something that they should not have overlooked in the first place.
Arkanosis 9y ago
Did that convention already exist 20 years ago?
- politician 9y ago
  This guy deletes emails that are sent to this address that are not for him. For 20 years. For all we know he started this convention!
- macspoofing 9y ago
  Probably not, or if it did, it was to a lesser extent. That's why I said it was bad luck for the customer that the vanity email he has chosen, happened to become associated with service notifications.
- wiml 9y ago
  RFC 2142 gives a nice snapshot of "standard" email address conventions as of almost exactly 20 years ago. There's no real need for a "noreply" address to be standardized or conventional, though. Nobody except someone at that particular domain should be introducing noreply@ addresses into the email system (and hopefully only as reply-to addresses).
  - jwilk 9y ago
    Link for the lazy: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2142 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2142
awinter-py 9y ago
there's nothing standard or reasonable about noreply. 1. I get credit card bills from no-reply@alertsp.chase.com. Does payment constitute a reply? 2. Why should I want to do business with a company that doesn't want to hear from me? 3. Standardization re: email address is hard to find. Plenty of sites won't accept a '+' in a gmail address, but gmail advertised that for years as a feature.
- uhhhhhhh 9y ago
  Well the standard and reasonable definition that has existed for longer than a decade is that no-reply implies that there is no one actually reading the emails you send. Its an indicator that its an automated system, and replying or sending emails to this address will get you no where but a black hole. The unreasonable action is giving someone 30-days to change their email, considering how integral email's are to security these days (password resets etc...) Eastlink made the mistake of allowing this, now they are forcing someone else to pay.
  - concede_pluto 9y ago
    There's nothing reasonable about expecting others to read your email when you don't read theirs. All these orgs should be blackholed as abusers of the commons, little better than spammers.
    - uhhhhhhh 9y ago
      Invoices, shipping notifications, automated newsletters, automated notifications, All very reasonable uses for a no-reply email addresses, and the typical use case. Spam is a completely different story, and rarely uses no-reply emails. If you want to blackhole any information you request from companies than scratch your head why you can't find your tracking information or flight status/itinerary that's completely up to you. Ignoring the valid, reasonable and typical use cases is just absurd
- macspoofing 9y ago
  >there's nothing standard or reasonable about noreply. Ok, I don't disagree but that's besides the point. For better or worse, a certain kind of convention grew around 'noreply' emails.
an_account 9y ago
I think it's reasonable to take it back, but it's unreasonable how they are doing it. They should give him a year and help him transfer to a new account (copy emails over, etc). 30 days isn't much time to find every site you've signed up for in the last 20 years.
- macspoofing 9y ago
  >I think it's reasonable to take it back, but it's unreasonable how they are doing it. I don't disagree. There should be a lot of leeway for their customer to get their accounts in order.
adekok 9y ago
> There is convention that email addresses of the form 'noreply@xxxxx.yyy' are company notifications There might be such a convention now. There absolutely was not such a convention 20 years ago when he registered it. On top of that, the refusal to move the mail to a new address is abusive. It's not that difficult to do. So he's in the sad situation of having decades of mail deleted. Because "fuck you, Eastlink screwed up, and you're going to pay for it" How any can defend such actions is beyond me.
- macspoofing 9y ago
  >There might be such a convention now. There absolutely was not such a convention 20 years ago when he registered it. That's why I said it was bad luck. >How any can defend such actions is beyond me. Just to be clear, I'm not defending the manner with which they took his account. He is (was?) their customer for 20 years and they should give him ample time to make arrangements. I'm simply stating that I understand why they would want to regain control of that email.
  - adekok 9y ago
    I appreciate the clarification, but I'm sure you understand how I understood "It was a reasonable decision by Eastlink." as supporting all of their actions.
valuearb 9y ago
Why don't they just use 'donotreply@eastlink.com"? It's only their marketing emails that need a "noreply" address and there is no reason that address has to be exactly "noreply". There is no confusion with any other user or company, because their no reply addresses are noreply@theirdomain.com.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  > It's only their marketing emails that need a "noreply" address Do their marketing letters need a "noreply" address? "This letter comes from nowhere, you can not reply to this letter"? Why do their marketing emails need it, then?
- joesb 9y ago
  They can use 'donotreply@eastlink.com' but they cannot stop other customer who receive email from 'noreply@eastlink.com' to not believe that the email is official Eastlink email.
Mithaldu 9y ago
You may not fully understand just how much work they're asking him to do, some of which may not even be possible, because of their own fault; and on top of this their refusal to help him fix their mistake at all. This is not "bad luck". This is "extreme cruelty". Also, since you like conventions, grandfathering in decisions made before a convention became reality is also a convention.

mercurysmessage 9y ago

Yea, reasonable, but something that they should not have overlooked in the first place.

Arkanosis 9y ago

Did that convention already exist 20 years ago?

politician 9y ago
This guy deletes emails that are sent to this address that are not for him. For 20 years. For all we know he started this convention!
macspoofing 9y ago
Probably not, or if it did, it was to a lesser extent. That's why I said it was bad luck for the customer that the vanity email he has chosen, happened to become associated with service notifications.
wiml 9y ago
RFC 2142 gives a nice snapshot of "standard" email address conventions as of almost exactly 20 years ago. There's no real need for a "noreply" address to be standardized or conventional, though. Nobody except someone at that particular domain should be introducing noreply@ addresses into the email system (and hopefully only as reply-to addresses).
- jwilk 9y ago
  Link for the lazy: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2142 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2142

awinter-py 9y ago

there's nothing standard or reasonable about noreply. 1. I get credit card bills from no-reply@alertsp.chase.com. Does payment constitute a reply? 2. Why should I want to do business with a company that doesn't want to hear from me? 3. Standardization re: email address is hard to find. Plenty of sites won't accept a '+' in a gmail address, but gmail advertised that for years as a feature.

uhhhhhhh 9y ago
Well the standard and reasonable definition that has existed for longer than a decade is that no-reply implies that there is no one actually reading the emails you send. Its an indicator that its an automated system, and replying or sending emails to this address will get you no where but a black hole. The unreasonable action is giving someone 30-days to change their email, considering how integral email's are to security these days (password resets etc...) Eastlink made the mistake of allowing this, now they are forcing someone else to pay.
- concede_pluto 9y ago
  There's nothing reasonable about expecting others to read your email when you don't read theirs. All these orgs should be blackholed as abusers of the commons, little better than spammers.
  - uhhhhhhh 9y ago
    Invoices, shipping notifications, automated newsletters, automated notifications, All very reasonable uses for a no-reply email addresses, and the typical use case. Spam is a completely different story, and rarely uses no-reply emails. If you want to blackhole any information you request from companies than scratch your head why you can't find your tracking information or flight status/itinerary that's completely up to you. Ignoring the valid, reasonable and typical use cases is just absurd
macspoofing 9y ago
>there's nothing standard or reasonable about noreply. Ok, I don't disagree but that's besides the point. For better or worse, a certain kind of convention grew around 'noreply' emails.

an_account 9y ago

I think it's reasonable to take it back, but it's unreasonable how they are doing it. They should give him a year and help him transfer to a new account (copy emails over, etc). 30 days isn't much time to find every site you've signed up for in the last 20 years.

macspoofing 9y ago
>I think it's reasonable to take it back, but it's unreasonable how they are doing it. I don't disagree. There should be a lot of leeway for their customer to get their accounts in order.

adekok 9y ago

> There is convention that email addresses of the form 'noreply@xxxxx.yyy' are company notifications There might be such a convention now. There absolutely was not such a convention 20 years ago when he registered it. On top of that, the refusal to move the mail to a new address is abusive. It's not that difficult to do. So he's in the sad situation of having decades of mail deleted. Because "fuck you, Eastlink screwed up, and you're going to pay for it" How any can defend such actions is beyond me.

macspoofing 9y ago
>There might be such a convention now. There absolutely was not such a convention 20 years ago when he registered it. That's why I said it was bad luck. >How any can defend such actions is beyond me. Just to be clear, I'm not defending the manner with which they took his account. He is (was?) their customer for 20 years and they should give him ample time to make arrangements. I'm simply stating that I understand why they would want to regain control of that email.
- adekok 9y ago
  I appreciate the clarification, but I'm sure you understand how I understood "It was a reasonable decision by Eastlink." as supporting all of their actions.

valuearb 9y ago

Why don't they just use 'donotreply@eastlink.com"? It's only their marketing emails that need a "noreply" address and there is no reason that address has to be exactly "noreply". There is no confusion with any other user or company, because their no reply addresses are noreply@theirdomain.com.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> It's only their marketing emails that need a "noreply" address Do their marketing letters need a "noreply" address? "This letter comes from nowhere, you can not reply to this letter"? Why do their marketing emails need it, then?
joesb 9y ago
They can use 'donotreply@eastlink.com' but they cannot stop other customer who receive email from 'noreply@eastlink.com' to not believe that the email is official Eastlink email.

Mithaldu 9y ago

You may not fully understand just how much work they're asking him to do, some of which may not even be possible, because of their own fault; and on top of this their refusal to help him fix their mistake at all. This is not "bad luck". This is "extreme cruelty". Also, since you like conventions, grandfathering in decisions made before a convention became reality is also a convention.