| Main Archive Page > Month Archives > postfix-users archives |
Re: postfix devnull mailbox
From: Reindl Harald <h.reindl_at_nospam>Date: Wed Dec 21 2011 - 00:21:03 GMT
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Am 21.12.2011 00:47, schrieb Peter:
> On 21/12/11 10:11, Dennis Carr wrote:
>> In all seriousness, I guess it depends on who you ask. For the original
>> poster's case, it's going to a "noreply" address, and I've seen cases
>> where noreply@foo.bar is simply eaten, more often than not, rather than
>> rejected. Besides, as far as I'm concerned, it does serve as an extra
>> use: messages to noreply or similar black hole addresses can serve as a
>> receptacle for flames. Some yutz can decide he's going to e a jerk and
>> flame somebody that doesn't actually exist - s/he feels good about
>> {him,her}self in theory,
>
> ...which is exactly why you should never drop email like that. You are
> advocating for tricking a sender into thinking that his email was
> received when it was not. The number of times of your scenario is going
> to be far outweighed by the number of emails that contain important
> information. Even in your case it is likely that the ranting sender
> wants to be removed from your mailing list and to make him think you've
> received this email but not removed him from the list turns you into a
> spammer.
so why does he not use the reply-button and what is he thinking does
"noreply@mail.tld" mean? if you do not read the noreply-address it
is the same as drop the messages, the only difference is on the storage