[Linux-aus] Electron Workshop spam

[Al Maclang]

The use of a "no-reply" email address can be considered somewhat unethical
in certain contexts, particularly when used to deceive or mislead
recipients. Here are some arguments for and against:

Arguments for considering it unethical:

   1. *Lack of accountability*: A "no-reply" email address can make it
   difficult for recipients to report spam or abuse, as they cannot reply back
   to the sender.
   2. *Misleading recipient information*: Using a "no-reply" email address
   can create the impression that the email is coming from someone who
   actually expects to receive responses, when in fact, they do not.
   3. *Difficulty in tracking issues*: When emails sent with "no-reply"
   addresses are reported as spam or abuse, it can be challenging for
   authorities and recipient email providers to track down the original sender.

Arguments against considering it unethical:

   1. *Intent and purpose*: In some cases, a "no-reply" email address is
   used solely for legitimate purposes, such as automated newsletters,
   technical notifications, or transactional emails where a response is not
   expected.
   2. *Industry standards*: Many industries and organizations use
   "no-reply" addresses to maintain operational efficiency and prevent spam
   complaints.

Best practices:

By using a "no-reply" email address, consider the following best practices:

   1. *Use it only when necessary*: Limit its use to situations where an
   automated response is genuinely required.
   2. *Include alternative contact information*: Provide a working email
   address or phone number for recipients who need assistance or have
   questions.
   3. *Clearly state your purpose*: In your email's content, clearly
   indicate that the email is sent by a machine or an automated process.

In the case of "no-reply at engage.electronworkshop.org", it appears to be an
automated newsletter email address. As long as the email is not mislabeled
or used to deceive recipients, using this type of address is unlikely to be
considered unethical. However, consider following best practices mentioned
above to ensure transparency and accountability.

Best regards,

Al

https://www.linkedin.com/in/albertomaclang/

On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 at 15:57, Russell Coker via linux-aus <
linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au> wrote:

> On Monday, 2 February 2026 15:24:07 AEDT Arjen Lentz via linux-aus wrote:
> > On 21/1/26 21:21, Russell Coker via linux-aus wrote:
> > > The work just wasn't good work.  They had the origin address as
> "no-reply"
> > > at their domain and don't have working postmaster or abuse addresses.
> > > They deliberately made it difficult to contact them.
> >
> > What you describe above is simply a technical status, not cause.
> >
> > Most likely it is technical inability to set up a mailing system/server
> > appropriately, which as you know is very common, if not the default
> > state of mail systems. To infer "deliberate made it difficult" seems a
>
> The email address "no-reply" is a very clear indication that they don't
> want
> replies.  There is no doubt at all about this.
>
> --
> My Main Blog         http://etbe.coker.com.au/
> My Documents Blog    http://doc.coker.com.au/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-aus mailing list
> linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au
> https://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/linux-aus
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to
> linux-aus-unsubscribe at lists.linux.org.au
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20260202/b74af605/attachment.htm>