4 ms·
If you want your support staff responding to user's auto-responders, newsletters and spam, then use support@, but if you want your staff to get work done, then
by behringer 8y ago
If you want your support staff responding to user's auto-responders, newsletters and spam, then use support@, but if you want your staff to get work done, then you use a noreply@ and have your support requests come in some other way.
- saltcured 8y agoYou seem adamant that users and their ISPs should deal with the spam problem without any speed bumps for you, but unwilling to accept the equal spam problem of sifting legitimate support problems from other replies. I understand the frustration of seeing our simple and low effort mechanisms decay over the past 30 years. But I also appreciate that there might just be a need for a more symmetric social contract for engaging in the use of communications systems and other common infrastructure.
- behringer 8y agoI don't consider receipts and other noreply content from the places I frequent to be spam. I want those messages. If my ISP or service provider auto-spammed them I would be very annoyed. Just because I want their receipts doesn't mean I expect to get a live human when I reply. I'll just call them or email their support line.
- saltcured 8y agoHmm, I didn't mean that all notifications are spam. But, the task recipients face for sifting and sorting their inbox into different buckets is essentially the same faced by a notification sender who accepts feedback instead of hiding behind a no-reply address. Lacking real message authentication and authorization tools, we have to look at a mixture of content and metadata patterns to try to sort it out. In this every gray world, I can imagine reciprocity being a useful measure...