No reply is better than no-reply | Hacker News Reader

No reply is better than no-reply

contrast.ie

43 pointseoghan15 comments

Wow. That Amazon email really breaks my expectations. I expect no-reply emails when it is obvious that a robot sent them, but when it's signed with a person's name, I am VERY surprised to see that you can't reply.

No-reply is useful when you want the person on the other end to reply by taking specific actions. I helped an organisation migrate annual dues to e-mail+credit card invoicing. the emails went out from the (active) info@ alias.

However, we included a link to get in touch with your local membership officer, to cancel membership etc. which would be completely automated, but we'd get loads of replies relating to those things, and spend quite some time processing those.

After we started sending from a no-reply and just included the contact-email in the mail-body, we didn't get a single e-mail related to those.

We might have pissed off some people who couldn't be bothered to read beyond the first five words, but I don't really care.

Hee hee, the same thing happened to me with Amazon. I use more than one email address too. Maybe I should have insisted for security reasons that they write to me only from the email address associated with their customer support department.

Increasing the tracking (letter-spacing in CSS) of body text i.e. choosing a design gimmick over legibility really aggravates me.

Inside Facebook does this too.

I'm all for cutting out the no-reply addresses, but this doesn't seem like the best example. The email is an automated response saying that the sender's address could not be verified, so the message was ignored. If the sender replied to it, then the email would just come from the same sender address, which would still be unverifiable, and then what?

I suppose they could set the reply address to some generic support location. But in that case, the best solution would have been to forward the initial (and unverifiable) email to the support location in the first place.

Hi. I agree it's not the best example.

But it's not an automatic reply. It's happened a few times with different people signing the mail but most importantly, the e-mail address is verified, it just wasn't the address connected with the specific billing enquiry I made.

Also, the original mail was sent to their generic support address, as requested on their site (last paragraph):

http://aws.amazon.com/tax-help/

Google hiring process has some of this as well. You get to take their personality test and then they send you some messages via the email. I replied but it turns out I was talking to an email bot. It was kind of dissapointing.

un-reply-able email makes me think that there is something intrinsically wrong somewhere. mostly it suggests to me that there is another mode of communication that ought to take that mode of communication over from email.

You would be surprised at how many firms, even now, use email + printer to simply continue using the fax workflow they developed in the 80s.

This page kept crashing in Chrome.

Report it and make $1337? :)

That's only for when the problem is with Chrome. :-/

I'm pretty sure it was it was badly coded script but I can't be arsed to dissect the webpage and fix it for them.

Sounds like a problem with Chrome to me. Browsers (theoretically) are not supposed to crash. If some crazy script can cause them to access memory improperly and crash, that is bad.

It doesn't matter that the website is coded poorly, with that opinion, malicious websites are "coded poorly" as well. Now, it doesn't mean that the crash you see is necessarily a security vuln, but it is at least a bug.

I see this under Linux. Chrome (big C) doesn't crash, the tab hangs. The browser chrome (little C) is very responsive and the task manager functions as expected. This very well may still be a Chrome bug, but the process isolation works splendidly.

Could someone understand the first paragraph?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com