4 ms·

No. When you block an email the sender will get a notification email from their mail server that their message was blocked. They will not assume anything for ve

by megous 2y ago

No. When you block an email the sender will get a notification email from their mail server that their message was blocked. They will not assume anything for very long.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> When you block an email the sender will get a notification email from their mail server that their message was blocked And if that blocked message was a reaction I’d assume I can move on: they sent an email, I sent a response, they refused to accept it and then spammed me to boot.
- m3047 2y ago
  > and then spammed me to boot There is a misunderstanding about how this works and how email works: * Rejecting an email during the SMTP exchange results in the /sending/ server returning a response to the sender. This is NOT spam and it not under the control of the receiver. * Rejecting an email post-acceptance and sending a reply is called /blowback/ and is typically considered poor practice and a type of spam. (But not UCE.) * Adding a header to an outgoing message which causes the recipient's email server to possibly generate an email message to the recipient when they reply has nothing to do with the sender. The recipient's email provider is doing this, and the problem is you. Let's recapitulate: 1) You use Microsoft as an ESP. 2) Somebody sends you a message, received by your ESP with this header. 3) Your ESP takes an action based on this header which results in you receiving feedback. The whole thing is a shitshow, oblivious to externalities; but whatever.
- megous 2y ago
  Nobody will spam you except your service provider. My mail server will just return error to your service provider when it tries to send email to it over SMTP.
- projektfu 2y ago
  I agree, this is clearly worse, whether it's "your e-mail has been rejected" or "this server is not configured to accept 'reactions'", it's unnecessarily hostile to a user who probably doesn't understand that Microsoft has done something non-standard. And they will probably assume that you don't know what you're doing, because your e-mail doesn't work.
  - Arnavion 2y ago
    The reaction sender's Exchange server would see it and could decide to not display the rejection to the user, since the Exchange server knows it's "just" a reaction that was rejected.
JohnFen 2y ago
That's email server dependent. When my mailserver blocks emails, it just drops them onto the floor. The sender doesn't get any sort of notification.
- megous 2y ago
  That's not blocking, then. You're just accepting the email and not doing anything with it. It's usually called "blackholing". It's less nice to the senders for obvious reasons.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    It's been called blocking for decades, but sure, we can call it whatever you like. From my point of view, it's blocking because it blocks the emails from reaching me.
    - megous 2y ago
      There's also a perspective of a sender, and if you return "250 Ok/Queued" from your server, you didn't block anything, regardless of what you do with the email afterwards.

by megous 2y ago

No. When you block an email the sender will get a notification email from their mail server that their message was blocked. They will not assume anything for very long.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> When you block an email the sender will get a notification email from their mail server that their message was blocked And if that blocked message was a reaction I’d assume I can move on: they sent an email, I sent a response, they refused to accept it and then spammed me to boot.

m3047 2y ago
> and then spammed me to boot There is a misunderstanding about how this works and how email works: * Rejecting an email during the SMTP exchange results in the /sending/ server returning a response to the sender. This is NOT spam and it not under the control of the receiver. * Rejecting an email post-acceptance and sending a reply is called /blowback/ and is typically considered poor practice and a type of spam. (But not UCE.) * Adding a header to an outgoing message which causes the recipient's email server to possibly generate an email message to the recipient when they reply has nothing to do with the sender. The recipient's email provider is doing this, and the problem is you. Let's recapitulate: 1) You use Microsoft as an ESP. 2) Somebody sends you a message, received by your ESP with this header. 3) Your ESP takes an action based on this header which results in you receiving feedback. The whole thing is a shitshow, oblivious to externalities; but whatever.
megous 2y ago
Nobody will spam you except your service provider. My mail server will just return error to your service provider when it tries to send email to it over SMTP.
projektfu 2y ago
I agree, this is clearly worse, whether it's "your e-mail has been rejected" or "this server is not configured to accept 'reactions'", it's unnecessarily hostile to a user who probably doesn't understand that Microsoft has done something non-standard. And they will probably assume that you don't know what you're doing, because your e-mail doesn't work.
- Arnavion 2y ago
  The reaction sender's Exchange server would see it and could decide to not display the rejection to the user, since the Exchange server knows it's "just" a reaction that was rejected.

JohnFen 2y ago

That's email server dependent. When my mailserver blocks emails, it just drops them onto the floor. The sender doesn't get any sort of notification.

megous 2y ago
That's not blocking, then. You're just accepting the email and not doing anything with it. It's usually called "blackholing". It's less nice to the senders for obvious reasons.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  It's been called blocking for decades, but sure, we can call it whatever you like. From my point of view, it's blocking because it blocks the emails from reaching me.
  - megous 2y ago
    There's also a perspective of a sender, and if you return "250 Ok/Queued" from your server, you didn't block anything, regardless of what you do with the email afterwards.