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
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.
_ | Peter J. Holzer | It took a genius to create [TeX],
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | and it takes a genius to maintain it.
| | | hjp(_at_)hjp(_dot_)at | That's not engineering, that's art.
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- David Kastrup in comp.text.tex
Description: Digital signature