6 ms·
While this can be very annoying, I have two thoughts on this. First, I'd say there is no practical way to "require" this. Some companies are just going to suck
by JaggedJax 6y ago
While this can be very annoying, I have two thoughts on this.
First, I'd say there is no practical way to "require" this. Some companies are just going to suck here and we should avoid them when possible.
Second, lots of the comments focus on never allowing "no reply" addresses, but in my experience we're monitoring and sending out automated alerts and notifications to our customers. We include a link for more info/actions and a clear email address for contacting support. Before we switched to sending from a no-reply address we were bombarded with out of office emails (this is a B2B platform). As a small team it was significantly slowing down our ability to reply to real support issues quickly. If there was a better OOO system widely used that didn't send an email to my support I would gladly switch back.
- tinus_hn 6y agoSurprise! If you’re a government it’s pretty easy to require this. You just require it and it’s required.
- JaggedJax 6y agoSo true. Let's hope we don't have to go that far with every country imposing their rule on every person in the world. We have too much of that already.
- geofft 6y agoYou have to be a dictatorship, though, because it's pretty hard to imagine any representative government wanting this. And it's pretty hard to be a dictatorship and remain in power, actually. More so if you give businesses a financial reason and not just a moral one to leave.
- masukomi 6y agoYou mean in the same way that spam email and spam calls to mobile numbers where it might actually cost folks money to answer are illegal in the US? Yeah, those requirements are so effective.
- acdha 6y agoYes, exactly the same way. European carriers are liable for those and nobody I know in Europe has a problem. American carriers have successfully convinced politicians and “libertarians” that they shouldn’t be expected to validate network access since not accepting money to deliver spam would reduce their profits by a trivial fraction.
- jpindar 6y agoSo you're not going to allow explicit no-reply addresses. Then they'll just ignore all incoming mail to the sending address. Or are you going to require that all businesses respond to all emails they receive? Will an automated response do?
- tinus_hn 6y agoIf you are government you can just say there needs to be an email address and reasonable requests to that address have to be responded to in a reasonable amount of time. The rest can be handled by the courts. It’s not that difficult, really.
- clusterfish 6y agoSuch vague laws are costly bullshit to everyone involved. How many times did you personally advance the legal precedent on your own dime to be so content with that approach?
- tinus_hn 6y agoThat’s the choice you make. You can either offer a working return address or you can waste your time and money ‘advancing the legal precedent’.
- clusterfish 6y agoI said you personally, that is, as a violated consumer suing a business. If you don't want to waste your own life fighting over your proposed vague law in court, you have no business to impose that on others. All too easy to propose a crap solution when it won't be you paying the price.
- tinus_hn 6y agoConsumers indeed have no business imposing laws on others. That’s the job of governments, as is enforcing laws.
- sloaken 6y agoI understand your point, but many of the no-reply (most) do not encode an email or website if you needed to talk with someone. Of course saying no replay is better than auto forward to bit/bucket.
- JaggedJax 6y agoI don't think regulation is the answer here though. I hope bringing this up and shaming or leaving companies that do thisis enough. And if it's not a service you can unsubscribe from, straight to spam it should go.