On 2008-04-24 15:36:59 +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > > Robert A. Rosenberg writes: > >At 03:19 -0400 on 04/19/2008, Hector Santos wrote about Re: I-D > >Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt: > >>Just consider the many transactions with addresses such as: > >> > >> no-reply @ validdomin.com > >> > >>that many feedbacks system use today, including bad guys and the > >>bad/good direct marketing people. > > > >What is the envelope address for these messages? > > The ones that end mail to me (about fifty addresses in my personal mail > archive, mostly noreply@, some no-reply@, some others) generally use > the same address,and it's valid in the sense that the address is > syntactically valid and that mail to the address is accepted by the > best MX for the domain. > > I would not bet that mail to such an address is stored on disk, or > causes any reaction other than (at most) an autoresponse. But YMMV.
I wouldn't bet either, but I would consider it bad practice if the
envelope sender for any automated mail is a black hole. If no human is
reading it, then there should at least be some program which analyzes
bounces and marks bouncing addresses as probably invalid.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | It took a genius to create [TeX],
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | and it takes a genius to maintain it.
| | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | That's not engineering, that's art.
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- David Kastrup in comp.text.tex
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
