[FEATURE] Create disposable email addresses for emails sent through the site

[+dfx]

If you send an email to another member and choose not to make your own email address visible, the email is sent with noreply@geocaching.com as return address, which many times makes any replies disappear into nirvana. Instead, the system should create a disposable email address every time you send a message without your own return address, which can be just a random string of letters and numbers (e.g. guid). Any emails sent to that address would then be forwarded to the user who sent the original message. The address would remain valid for only some time, say a week or two, and then would revert back to non-existent status (at which point proper bounces can be sent, which could include information about how to email the user through the website if still desired).

[+frinklabs]

This is such a great idea that I am surprised that it hasn't already been implemented.

 

I had a look at an SMTP header and the outbound server appears to use Postfix, so there's no stupid Microsoft-is-expensive reason that they couldn't implement an open-source solution for this.

[+paleolith]

Definitely a great idea. Another aspect is that, while there are good reasons not to send bounces to messages sent to the noreply address, those reasons would not apply to the disposable address. So if someone replies after the time limit has expired, they'll know the message didn't go through. If the disposable addresses start getting on spam lists, the bounce could be disabled after a few months.

 

Edward

[+rodz]

Probably one of the best ideas I have seen suggested on the website. I have lost count of the times I have fallen in this trap of missing that an email is "missing" a reply address. It would also mean that replied emails would contain the history and I could add relevant attachments such screen shots or photos.

[7rxc]

I like the idea... I have to assume that it would be the third option for messaging via profile . That is, many publish their emails on the profile, many others enable the 'include' email option, but this would be fine business for the 'private' types that do neither A or B option. The 'no reply' method has many drawbacks and confusions. Such as the fact that a message from 'no reply' does allow replies to an 'enabled' option user directly. However it says not to reply (meaning to 'no reply', rather than the supplied email).

 

Doug 7rxc

[AZcachemeister]

Could be useful, I suppose.

I usually assume that anyone sending me a message via the site that DOES NOT include their eMail addy doesn't want a reply...so I don't.

[+dfx]

Oh look at that, feedback

 

The system could even be extended to also obfuscate the return email address of any replies sent through it. For example: User A sends message to user B. User A doesn't want to reveal their email address, so the system generates a new random return address and uses that as return address in the email. User B then replies to that email, sending an email to the generated return address. Since the system knows that this email probably comes from user B, it also knows whether user B wants to reveal their email address or not. If they don't, then the system can also rewrite the reply email, substituting the return address with a newly generated random email address that would then lead back to user B. Lather rinse repeat. Through that, users could freely exchange emails even if neither of them wants to reveal their address.

 

But that would be optional.

[+northernpenguin]

Alternatively, put a listener on the noreply@geocaching.com address that bounces with a message that tells the cacher how to use the "contact another cacher" feature from te website.

[+kunarion]

Alternatively, put a listener on the noreply@geocaching.com address that bounces with a message that tells the cacher how to use the "contact another cacher" feature from te website.

This specific part was rejected previously. Just one issue is the system could get overloaded with all the bouncing of emails.

 

But I'd support a brief info text included in the Profile message itself, giving recipients a heads-up that their reply will vanish.

[+JesandTodd]

Could be useful, I suppose.

I usually assume that anyone sending me a message via the site that DOES NOT include their eMail addy doesn't want a reply...so I don't.

 

That's exactly what I assume, and do as well.

[+Ambient_Skater]

This is a good idea, but I don't think it should be a priority since anyone can still create a Gmail address just for geocaching and include that with their emails.

[+northernpenguin]

Alternatively, put a listener on the noreply@geocaching.com address that bounces with a message that tells the cacher how to use the "contact another cacher" feature from te website.

This specific part was rejected previously. Just one issue is the system could get overloaded with all the bouncing of emails.

 

But I'd support a brief info text included in the Profile message itself, giving recipients a heads-up that their reply will vanish.

 

Doubt that. It's not much different than generating a 550 error message. It's actually pretty easy for most mail systems to generate a block of text and fire it back at the sender.

Much less work than setting up a system that auto-generates disposable e-mail addresses, tracks the messages to link them to the real account and expires the disposable e-mail addresses.

[+dfx]

Doubt that. It's not much different than generating a 550 error message. It's actually pretty easy for most mail systems to generate a block of text and fire it back at the sender.

Sounds like you've never seen two autoresponders replying back to each other

[+northernpenguin]

Doubt that. It's not much different than generating a 550 error message. It's actually pretty easy for most mail systems to generate a block of text and fire it back at the sender.

Sounds like you've never seen two autoresponders replying back to each other

 

Sure I have. And I am also aware of easy countermeasures for that, that most modern email systems support right out of the box.

[+dfx]

Doubt that. It's not much different than generating a 550 error message. It's actually pretty easy for most mail systems to generate a block of text and fire it back at the sender.

Sounds like you've never seen two autoresponders replying back to each other

 

Sure I have. And I am also aware of easy countermeasures for that, that most modern email systems support right out of the box.

 

Meh. It doesn't matter what you try, it will always break in some way or another. Either that, or end up being abused. Autoresponders are evil, period. Proper bounces (with a null sender address) are somewhat safer but can still cause problems, but those shouldn't be used in such a scenario anyway (because you shouldn't send emails with an invalid return address, which is what a bounce implies - plus, bounces may not even make it to the end user).

Edited November 24, 2011 by dfx