

Do-not-reply - numlocked
http://blog.untrod.com/2009/08/do-not-reply.html

======
dpcan
False.

1) Larger companies have servers dedicated to sending out mass emails and the
email address has to resolve back to the sending server properly or the spam
filters kill it.

2) They need you to click the links in the email for analytics. Learning what
offers get the most traction HELPS them AND YOU so they deliver relevant
content in the future.

3) If you use a "support" or "sales" email as the sender and then send the
mass email to 100,000 people, you are going to get 20,000 bounce-backs,
littering your support email channel and support software with garbage.

4) You can't have people replying with "don't email me again" because those
will get missed. Again, you can't have a large list and realistically go
through all the bounce-backs looking for legitimate unsubscribe messages - the
links IN the email need to be used for this.

It's not fair to compare email campaigns to calling a company on the phone.
Apples and Oranges.

~~~
run4yourlives
His whole point is that if you feel the need to blast me with your semi-
important offer, you should feel the need to listen to my response.

Most of your points just highlight that having a do-no-reply is a simple
convenience to the sender at the expense of the receiver. That is exactly the
attitude that he is talking about.

~~~
dpcan
His whole point is that it isn't convenient for HIM. Consumers seem to think
they should get EVERYTHING they want, but in this situation, the harm done is
miniscule, and it isn't meant to create pain for the consumer, it's meant to
run the business as efficiently and intelligently as possible.

He doesn't mention anything about offers I don't believe, and I'm not strictly
talking about offers either, I'm referring to any email that HAS to get
through to the consumer, whether it's an offer or an update.

~~~
mmt
Since, in effect, he's the one paying to receive the message and, potentially,
paying for reading it with his time, I agree with him that his convenience is
more important than that of the sender.

------
GavinB
We have a catch-all running on the domainthat routes all e-mail sent to
unknown addresses to customer service.

We get e-mail sent to "no-reply" registration all the time. If we didn't do
it, It's worth it not to have so many customers feel ignored the first time
they try to contact us.

~~~
eli
Careful with that. There are spam bots out there that just pick a domain and
starting firing away many thousands of messages at
<common_user_name>@yourdomain.com

------
RyanMcGreal
QFT: _Using a do-not-reply address to communicate ... sends a message that the
organization's time is more valuable than yours._

Though there are legitimate exceptions - I'm thinking, for example, of an opt-
in automated status update that has the sole purpose of sending you a piece of
information to which you would have no particular need to reply.

~~~
Torn
Exactly this. There's plenty of legitimate one-way uses of email
communication.

When I'm getting confirmation emails from Amazon after having bought
something, for example, I _do not expect_ to be able to reply to the machine
sending them out -- it doesn't make much sense.

I'll go further with my argument: the ability to reply via email doesn't
guarantee my communication will be dealt with in an appropriate or timely
manner. Far better, I think, to go to the support section of a site and use a
guided process to get my query to either answer the question myself or to have
it directed down the appropriate channel.

~~~
prodigal_erik
> the ability to reply via email doesn't guarantee my communication will be
> dealt with in an appropriate or timely manner.

If they're too incompetent to handle email, I won't expect timely or
appropriate action from them no matter what I do, and I'll regard doing
business with them accordingly.

~~~
Torn
Having a single email address at the top of an email, necessitating parsing or
eyeballing the content to understand the intentions and _then_ forwarding it
on to the appropriate people is surely more work, and less efficient, than the
alternatives.

It's conceptually easier to streamline support via a guided on-line process or
knowledgebase type repository. Users can often answer their own questions, or
if not they can at least be pointed at the appropriate department. I'd go as
far as to say a large retailer would appear more incompetent if my only access
to support was via a single email address.

~~~
numlocked
I completely agree if the email was the only point of access, but forcing
customers onto a site is a classic case of forcing customers into a work flow
that makes sense for the organization instead of providing tools to work with
the customer's natural work flow.

------
billymeltdown
> <em>I understand that a large email blast will generate all kinds of auto-
> responses, email bounce messages, and other forms of invalid replies, but
> with some decent filtering and a little work an organization could surely
> separate the wheat from the chaff. It's the least they could do to in
> exchange for reading their message.</em>

I don't think the author appreciates how difficult this is. It's just not
realistic in all situations, especially situations where the user knowingly
signs up to receive an automated message.

I normally use Error-To for do-not-reply, and post a valid reply-to header,
but in many scenarios this isn't enough. dpcan's first comment is particularly
relevant > "the email address has to resolve back to the sending server
properly or the spam filters kill it"

~~~
jodrellblank
_I don't think the author appreciates how difficult this is._

I think it's trivially easy. Hire some temp workers to do it.

Heck, you could put a note "We send these emails to a lot of people and many
are returned to sender unopened. If you reply to this, please type the word
'reply' in the following space to make it stand out from the returned emails
and grab our attention : [ ] "

Then filter those out as a priority. That could solve a lot of the problem
even without a good mail filter.

~~~
jncraton
Temp workers are more expensive than CPU time. Bayesian filtering would go a
long way in cutting out the auto responders, but I agree, the problem doesn't
seem too difficult.

~~~
prawn
If it wasn't too difficult, big companies with loads of money would be doing
it, right? Doesn't seem that many are, which suggests that the biggest and
best haven't found an efficient solution they think is worth paying for.

~~~
mmt
To me, it suggests that they don't think the recipient's time is worth paying
for, which isn't the same.

