4 ms·
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
by 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 agoThere'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 agoInvoices, 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