The answer to your question is "no there is not". I can see disadvantages of having one.
I guess you have to decide whether or not you want to auto-reply to no-reply@ addresses! -- Benjamin -----Original Message----- From: mailop <mailop-boun...@mailop.org> On Behalf Of Grant Taylor via mailop Sent: jeudi 11 avril 2019 04:33 To: mailop@mailop.org Subject: Re: [mailop] Are there any de facto standards around no-reply@ addresses? On 4/10/19 8:11 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote: > I hold a very low opinion of any business entity that sends me > automated email and either deliberately chooses to ignore my reply or > forces me to jump through hoops in order to reply via a web form or such. The use case that has me asking is in some ways more dastardly than that. Think $BigCompany1 having a home grown ticketing system that uses email talking to $BigCompany2 that also has a home grown ticketing system using email and the complications that can ensue when one and / or the other don't implement sanity checks like those outlined in RFC 3834. Hence the question ~> discussion about one of the big companies ""enhancing their home grown ticketing system to not send messages to noreply@ email addresses, even if the notification that prompted something did come from there. (Assume that there are anywhere between 3 and 30 other email addresses on a ticket.) I don't know the exact criteria that precipitated the loop (there's a chance that someone on one end or the other added their own system as a CC to receive copies). > If it's important enough for them to trouble a customer or potential > customer, it should be important enough for them to listen to what > that customer or potential customer has to say about it. Agreed. > Even if it's a notification I've requested, the concept of write-only > email smacks of poor customer service IMHO. -- Grant. . . . unix || die _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
