Trust messages and reply-to

MikeHiow

MikeHiow

MikeHiow

Permabanned
Joined
26 Oct 2004
Posts
7,540
Location
Isle of Wight
It would make a lot of sense to set 'reply-to' header to the email of the person emailing - I've just sent another message to noreply@ocuk, as I'm sure many do.

Seems like a trivial task that could be done in seconds, but would have a huge impact making Trust that little bit smoother.

Reply-To is actually set as [email protected], which just doesn't make sense.
 
I don't know how difficult it would be to change it but it would make a certain amount of sense to change it if possible. However it's also an object lesson in paying attention to where you are sending your emails to - it does quite clearly say noreply in the address.
 
It isn't that, when you receive an email you would usually hit reply when responding to it - thus you have no reason to really look at where it's going.
 
MikeHiow said:
It isn't that, when you receive an email you would usually hit reply when responding to it - thus you have no reason to really look at where it's going.
Click to expand...

And as you've discovered it may well go astray if you just do that... It could just be me but I have always looked at the email address when replying so while I agree it could be simpler it's never been a major issue for me.
 
semi-pro waster said:
And as you've discovered it may well go astray if you just do that... It could just be me but I have always looked at the email address when replying so while I agree it could be simpler it's never been a major issue for me.
Click to expand...
It's not just friction, it's plan wrong. The "reply to" field, when used, has a specific purpose that is different to that of the standard "from" field.
 
Welcome to E-mail 101 :D

But yes, what he said - Reply-to is there for a reason, and it is being used incorrectly.
 
If you send mail to the noreply address does it bounce back the message or just get lost forever? A bounce back would be handy to stop this kind of thing as well.
 
Pho said:
If you send mail to the noreply address does it bounce back the message or just get lost forever? A bounce back would be handy to stop this kind of thing as well.
Click to expand...

That's the other annoying thing - they do not bounce, either.
 
orderoftheflame said:
OcUK then have to pay for the resources it requires, rather than users email accounts doing all that.

I don't mind trust, but this is certainly a quirk with it.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine it would take up a HUGE amount of resources though, certainly nothing to make a dent in their profits!
 
andy_mk3 said:
I can't imagine it would take up a HUGE amount of resources though, certainly nothing to make a dent in their profits!
Click to expand...

It's covered in the FAQ, the argument is that it is to prevent excess load on the server. The forums are not, or never used to be, paid for directly by the shop - Spie chooses to fund them himself.

You can make the argument about whether it adds to the load much or not, I suspect it doesn't hugely matter as the policy is unlikely to change on PMs. I'd suggest it's not really a huge inconvenience to simply email people rather than PM but obviously views may vary.
 
I think PMs are disabled because it's hard to moderate what people say to each other in a PM, at least taking it to email keeps it away from OcUK's business.

edit: beat. PMs wouldn't cause that much excess load though surely?
 
If you set a limit to 25 PM's it really wouldn't be that bad. A few kb's for each PM and a little extra bandwidth for accessing them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom