6 ms·

> <em>I understand that a large email blast will generate all kinds of auto-responses, email bounce messages, and other forms of invalid replies, but with some

> <em>I understand that a large email blast will generate all kinds of auto-responses, email bounce messages, and other forms of invalid replies, but with some decent filtering and a little work an organization could surely separate the wheat from the chaff. It's the least they could do to in exchange for reading their message.</em> I don't think the author appreciates how difficult this is. It's just not realistic in all situations, especially situations where the user knowingly signs up to receive an automated message. I normally use Error-To for do-not-reply, and post a valid reply-to header, but in many scenarios this isn't enough. dpcan's first comment is particularly relevant > "the email address has to resolve back to the sending server properly or the spam filters kill it"

jodrellblank 17y ago
I don't think the author appreciates how difficult this is. I think it's trivially easy. Hire some temp workers to do it. Heck, you could put a note "We send these emails to a lot of people and many are returned to sender unopened. If you reply to this, please type the word 'reply' in the following space to make it stand out from the returned emails and grab our attention : [ ] " Then filter those out as a priority. That could solve a lot of the problem even without a good mail filter.
- jncraton 17y ago
  Temp workers are more expensive than CPU time. Bayesian filtering would go a long way in cutting out the auto responders, but I agree, the problem doesn't seem too difficult.
  - prawn 17y ago
    If it wasn't too difficult, big companies with loads of money would be doing it, right? Doesn't seem that many are, which suggests that the biggest and best haven't found an efficient solution they think is worth paying for.
    - mmt 17y ago
      To me, it suggests that they don't think the recipient's time is worth paying for, which isn't the same.
- eli 17y ago
  That's pretty much what my company does, but surely you'll agree that this requires more resources than sending from a do-not-reply. If we were just sending out a monthly newsletter, it probably wouldn't be worth it.

jodrellblank 17y ago

I don't think the author appreciates how difficult this is. I think it's trivially easy. Hire some temp workers to do it. Heck, you could put a note "We send these emails to a lot of people and many are returned to sender unopened. If you reply to this, please type the word 'reply' in the following space to make it stand out from the returned emails and grab our attention : [ ] " Then filter those out as a priority. That could solve a lot of the problem even without a good mail filter.

jncraton 17y ago
Temp workers are more expensive than CPU time. Bayesian filtering would go a long way in cutting out the auto responders, but I agree, the problem doesn't seem too difficult.
- prawn 17y ago
  If it wasn't too difficult, big companies with loads of money would be doing it, right? Doesn't seem that many are, which suggests that the biggest and best haven't found an efficient solution they think is worth paying for.
  - mmt 17y ago
    To me, it suggests that they don't think the recipient's time is worth paying for, which isn't the same.
eli 17y ago
That's pretty much what my company does, but surely you'll agree that this requires more resources than sending from a do-not-reply. If we were just sending out a monthly newsletter, it probably wouldn't be worth it.