4 ms·

> Hey asshole, what if I want to reply? > What’s that? You don’t want crazies emailing you? You’re worried about spam? Based on these lines, it seems like you

> Hey asshole, what if I want to reply? > What’s that? You don’t want crazies emailing you? You’re worried about spam? Based on these lines, it seems like you're misunderstanding what "noreply@" means... They're not saying it's against the "rules" to reply, they're just saying nobody is monitoring the mailbox so it would be a waste of your time to do so. It's almost a courtesy, really...

2arrs2ells 15y ago
You missed the point. The article is arguing that companies should put a monitored mailbox as the default reply-to, and not use unmonitored mailboxes, as they are missing out on valuable feedback and interactions.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
  - avree 15y ago
    From a flow perspective, lots of companies use automation tools/sorting for incoming e-mails. It's really easy to get inundated in e-mail spam, and it's hard to set up filtering on a very general e-mail with lots of possible "Reply" origins.
- RobertLowe 15y ago
  You beat me too it. I setup clients up with help@example.com when permitting. Turn those noreplies upsidedown ;)
- stock_toaster 15y ago
  I think for things where feedback is warranted, sure. But for automated email sending, alerts, notifications, things which may have very high bounce rates, using a real mailbox is basically spamming yourself or your support team. I tend to use 'automated@' or 'a.robot@' though, to reflect that it was sent on behave of a process.
  - capnrefsmmat 15y ago
    Your reply-to address doesn't have to be the same as the envelope-from on the message, so intentional replies can go to a different address than SMTP bounces. You don't have to spam yourself.
  - nodata 15y ago
    But you won't know whether feedback is warranted. You don't get to decide - the user does. As an example, yesterday I got an e-mail where a template variable hadn't been expanded. noreply means they don't get to find out. It's worth my time replying to an e-mail. It's not worth finding a contact form and filling it out.
- FaceKicker 15y ago
  I understand that point, and it's valid. I was only saying that the lines I quoted, from the way they are phrased, make the author seem like he doesn't understand the reason why businesses use "no-reply" addresses to begin with. Which I know wasn't the purpose of the article, but I thought it was worth bringing up. Sorry if I misinterpreted.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

2arrs2ells 15y ago

You missed the point. The article is arguing that companies should put a monitored mailbox as the default reply-to, and not use unmonitored mailboxes, as they are missing out on valuable feedback and interactions.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- avree 15y ago
  From a flow perspective, lots of companies use automation tools/sorting for incoming e-mails. It's really easy to get inundated in e-mail spam, and it's hard to set up filtering on a very general e-mail with lots of possible "Reply" origins.
RobertLowe 15y ago
You beat me too it. I setup clients up with help@example.com when permitting. Turn those noreplies upsidedown ;)
stock_toaster 15y ago
I think for things where feedback is warranted, sure. But for automated email sending, alerts, notifications, things which may have very high bounce rates, using a real mailbox is basically spamming yourself or your support team. I tend to use 'automated@' or 'a.robot@' though, to reflect that it was sent on behave of a process.
- capnrefsmmat 15y ago
  Your reply-to address doesn't have to be the same as the envelope-from on the message, so intentional replies can go to a different address than SMTP bounces. You don't have to spam yourself.
- nodata 15y ago
  But you won't know whether feedback is warranted. You don't get to decide - the user does. As an example, yesterday I got an e-mail where a template variable hadn't been expanded. noreply means they don't get to find out. It's worth my time replying to an e-mail. It's not worth finding a contact form and filling it out.
FaceKicker 15y ago
I understand that point, and it's valid. I was only saying that the lines I quoted, from the way they are phrased, make the author seem like he doesn't understand the reason why businesses use "no-reply" addresses to begin with. Which I know wasn't the purpose of the article, but I thought it was worth bringing up. Sorry if I misinterpreted.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]