3 ms·
He's not any kind of idiot. While it may be a de facto special alias today, that status was much less certain when he got it. The time for his email provider t
by jpitz 9y ago
He's not any kind of idiot.
While it may be a de facto special alias today, that status was much less certain when he got it. The time for his email provider to reject the address was when he requested it.
- kazinator 9y agoI'm pretty sure "noreply" was a thing in 1997. Didn't he receive even one single e-mail from "noreply" addresses in the last 20 years to recognize that, hey, people are using this thing, which is the same as mine! > The time for his email provider to reject the address was when he requested it. Do any of the same people even work there any more, you know? Maybe at that time, you could have gotten "abuse" or "postmaster" if you had asked for those from the same provider. Sometimes such things slip through the cracks.
- jpitz 9y ago>Do any of the same people even work there any more, you know? I do not know. What point are you making here? Regardless of the answer to that question, the provider is still using a specious justification to cancel an account they have provided for twenty years.
- kazinator 9y agoAnyway, I don't agree with them on the grounds that there shouldn't be "noreply" accounts. They want to seize it from him so that they can spam people with "noreply@theirdomain.com", which they shouldn't be doing. E-mails should be sent with valid return addresses that someone picks up, or not sent at all. I.e. since if this fellow contacts you by e-mail with his "noreply" account and you write back, he then actually replies, his use of it is more legitimate then what they are likely planning.