Do-not-reply

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

by numlocked • 17 years ago

43 33 17 years ago

blog.untrod.com

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.

Torn2• 17 years ago

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• 17 years ago

> 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.

dpcan4• 17 years ago

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.

lsb• 17 years ago

But these bouncebacks are predictable, no? There are several key words in them that identify them as bouncebacks, no? So make a spam filter for them, and it'll work great, especially because the mail programs aren't trying to evade spam filters with their messages.

dpcan4• 17 years ago

Have you ever dealt with over 1000 bounce-back messages? It's as if every email server on the planet uses a different bounce-back method and message. It's terribly unpredictable. And false positives are the problem I'm talking about.

If you allow bounce-backs or replies with personalized messages, as a larger company, you have to let them through or you will miss something. I don't know support departments big enough to wade through this amount of junk every time you have to notify your user base of something.

GavinB2• 17 years ago

Users will reply to your "no-reply" e-mail, especially if it's a registration e-mail.

One way or another, it's worth trying to get these e-mails into your support channel.

dpcan4• 17 years ago

Your bounce-back to the reply can simply be to redirect the user to the proper channels of support based on their specific request.

If a customer needs support, you don't want them pulling up that last "offer" email they received and trying to get help with a technical problem. From a company perspective, you would lose control.

Just bounce back 2 links:

1) Click here for sales. 2) Click here for support.

run4yourlives• 17 years ago

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.

dpcan4• 17 years ago

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.

philfreo• 17 years ago

I agree. Besides, a better comparison to email campaigns, instead of phone calls, is mass mailings via snail mail. I don't think people expect that the return address on the envelope is the same address to which all customer service related letters should be sent.

anamax• 17 years ago

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

Sure it is - they're both customer contact via an interactive channel. The fact that it's cheaper for them to send e-mail than to call does not imply that they should spend less money dealing with e-mail.

My time matters and a company that respects it gets my biz from one that doesn't.

And, it's not like they can't spend the money that they save on using e-mail instead of phone (or USPS mail) to buy e-mail processing software. Sure, there will be some messages that it won't handle, but it can handle the vast majority, leaving them plenty of time to handle exceptions.

billymeltdown• 17 years ago

> <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"

jodrellblank2• 17 years ago

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• 17 years ago

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.

eli7• 17 years ago

That's pretty much what my company does, but surely you'll agree that this requires more resources than sending from a do-not-reply.

If we were just sending out a monthly newsletter, it probably wouldn't be worth it.

GavinB2• 17 years ago

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.

eli7• 17 years ago

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

Do-not-reply

Related Stories