[anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 17:33:23 +0100
Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:
<snip>
> What I'm struggling with (I don't want to speak for Nick), is this:
> what is the benefit of getting people to set it to a valid address
> that no human reads, or no human capable of acting, over null or the
> various null-equivalents you list?
> Who does that help? How?
> 
> Michele said:
> > In fact an auto-reply would be preferable to the black holes in many
> > cases ..  
> 
> Can someone please explain why that is preferable, rather than merely
> equivalent?
> (Please don't just say "because it shows they have working e-mail".
> What is the value of that, if nobody's reading it?)
> 

there is an easy answer to your question.

it depends what the goal is:

1.
==
if the goal is to test if there is email routing, dns is operational, etc 
- an autoresponder proves that.
it has no real implications as someone could argue: but it responded,
so it was received - but it could easily be argued that it is an auto response and it is
also auto deleted - so no communications were ever received.

2.
==
if the goal is any sort of communication - or to know if the email address is 
real and functional, so that it could be used for communication 
- an autoresponder does not prove that.

+++
a technical example of an auto responder, is also a bounce notice - 

example Subject Line: 
Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
or
Subject: Auto Response
etc.

example auto response message:
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
or
This message was created by an auto responder. The received message has
been deleted.
etc.

so outcomes highlights goals. 

Andre