On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 10:51 +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote: > Jeff schrieb: > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Tony Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> I want the From address to be set to something like [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> A mail sent to this address will cause no error, but nobody will > >>> read those emails. > >> That is a very very bad idea and the best way to have your server added to > >> many RBLs. > >> > > <snip> > > > > I'm afraid I don't see how sending mail with an unmonitored return > > address (i.e., accepted and delivered locally to /dev/null) will get > > you on an RBL. I get mail of that type from big companies all the > > time. They usually have something in the message that explains that > > you should not reply and that replies will not be read. Could someone > > expand on the RBL comment? > > > > We have reason to do this for messages that provide automated > > information but are not intended to start a dialogue with the > > customer. Why is this wrong? It seems to be a rather common practice. > > > > in rare cases , recipients may use sender verify ( which they shouldnt > do these days i.e it makes lot of unneeded smtp traffic , backscatter > and dont work with greylisting in the most cases ) so if you use a > not working/valid noreply@ mail address, mail will not reach > the recipient ( never use no existing domains with noreply@ cause this > will not work with most antispam solutions, never use domains you do not > own cause this leads loosing mail traffic to others ), so use a smtp > working noreply@ with your domains as sender address > but simply dont answer to mails going there, you may silent discard them
This is exactly the point of question me and Jeff are talking about: It has been said by other posters, that using a sender address, that is SMTP-valid (i.e. you can send emails to this address without error), but silently discarded by the receiving server, is NOT a good practice and will cause "bad reputation". Why? -stefan-
