Does return-path or reply-to affect email deliverability?Linux Exim set return-path header automaticly using from headerWill Amazon SES improve spam filtering through typical spam filtering packagesEmail Deliverability on Yahoo is very poor. Any suggestions please?Should one use “From”, “Reply-To” or both headers to reflect their client's email address when sending an email to yourself from a “Contact Us” page?Google Apps Email cannot receive emails from other domains on our server. PleskWhat is preferable, “no-reply@” or “noreply@”?How Does Low Volume Affect (esp. live.com) Email Deliverability?Improving email deliverability: Implementing DKIM and DMARCSPF block on return-path mailSPF on Office 365 - Can the return-path address be spoofed by another Office 365 sender?
Multi tool use
How to split a string in two substrings of same length using bash?
Opposite of "Squeaky wheel gets the grease"
Count down from 0 to 5 seconds and repeat
What happens to foam insulation board after you pour concrete slab?
How bad would a partial hash leak be, realistically?
Is it legal in the UK for politicians to lie to the public for political gain?
Old black and white movie: glowing black rocks slowly turn you into stone upon touch
Explain Ant-Man's "not it" scene from Avengers: Endgame
Convert camelCase and PascalCase to Title Case
How to make thick Asian sauces?
Is the decompression of compressed and encrypted data without decryption also theoretically impossible?
California: "For quality assurance, this phone call is being recorded"
Why is Colorado so different politically from nearby states?
Riley's, assemble!
Secure offsite backup, even in the case of hacker root access
Linux tr to convert vertical text to horizontal
How much water is needed to create a Katana capable of cutting flesh, bones and wood?
What is the right way to float a home lab?
Company is asking me to work from overseas, but wants me to take a paycut
What happens if you do emergency landing on a US base in middle of the ocean?
How to pass a regex when finding a directory path in bash?
Do adult Russians normally hand-write Cyrillic as cursive or as block letters?
Poisson distribution: why does time between events follow an exponential distribution?
In this example, which path would a monster affected by the Dissonant Whispers spell take?
Does return-path or reply-to affect email deliverability?
Linux Exim set return-path header automaticly using from headerWill Amazon SES improve spam filtering through typical spam filtering packagesEmail Deliverability on Yahoo is very poor. Any suggestions please?Should one use “From”, “Reply-To” or both headers to reflect their client's email address when sending an email to yourself from a “Contact Us” page?Google Apps Email cannot receive emails from other domains on our server. PleskWhat is preferable, “no-reply@” or “noreply@”?How Does Low Volume Affect (esp. live.com) Email Deliverability?Improving email deliverability: Implementing DKIM and DMARCSPF block on return-path mailSPF on Office 365 - Can the return-path address be spoofed by another Office 365 sender?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
I want to send an email that looks like:
Sender: user@A.com
From: xyz@B.com
Reply-To: aaa@C.com
Return-Path: aaa@C.com
A.com is owned by me, and B.com and C.com are owned by a client. I am mostly concerned that email clients will flag this email as spam since the reply-to and return-path are from another domain than the sender. Is this a valid fear?
asked Jan 25 '13 at 20:28
user156130user156130
161
add a comment |
I want to send an email that looks like:
Sender: user@A.com
From: xyz@B.com
Reply-To: aaa@C.com
Return-Path: aaa@C.com
A.com is owned by me, and B.com and C.com are owned by a client. I am mostly concerned that email clients will flag this email as spam since the reply-to and return-path are from another domain than the sender. Is this a valid fear?
asked Jan 25 '13 at 20:28
user156130user156130
161
add a comment |
I want to send an email that looks like:
Sender: user@A.com
From: xyz@B.com
Reply-To: aaa@C.com
Return-Path: aaa@C.com
A.com is owned by me, and B.com and C.com are owned by a client. I am mostly concerned that email clients will flag this email as spam since the reply-to and return-path are from another domain than the sender. Is this a valid fear?
asked Jan 25 '13 at 20:28
user156130user156130
161
I want to send an email that looks like:
Sender: user@A.com
From: xyz@B.com
Reply-To: aaa@C.com
Return-Path: aaa@C.com
A.com is owned by me, and B.com and C.com are owned by a client. I am mostly concerned that email clients will flag this email as spam since the reply-to and return-path are from another domain than the sender. Is this a valid fear?
asked Jan 25 '13 at 20:28
user156130user156130
161
asked Jan 25 '13 at 20:28
user156130user156130
161
asked Jan 25 '13 at 20:28
user156130user156130
161
asked Jan 25 '13 at 20:28
user156130user156130
161
asked Jan 25 '13 at 20:28
user156130user156130
161
161
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
I haven't seen any that would hold it against you. A quick check of a few spam scanners indicates that if it's even noticed, it must not be a large factor in their spaminess decision.
If you have all your other ducks in a row (SPF or SenderID, DKIM, and DNS) the rest of the message body/headers have significantly less impact on the spaminess score of the message.
answered Jan 25 '13 at 20:35
Chris SChris S
73.9k10107202
add a comment |
I have experienced that setting the Reply-To header does degrade deliverability, in two ways:
MailChannels (a SMTP sending service that we use) will funnel messages with aReply-Tothrough their "junk pool" of IP addresses, almost all of which are on some blacklist (usually at least UCEPROTECT1).- SpamAssassin's
FREEMAIL_REPLYTO*rules trigger ifReply-Tocontains a freemail address (gmail, yahoo, hotmail, et al) which doesn't match theFromheader (which is often true in this use case, since theFromheader can't be set arbitrarily because of SPF.
If these guys are suspicious of Reply-To, perhaps others are too?
Since we depend on these systems, and want good deliverability, we must use these from headers:
Envelope-From: no-reply@website.com
From: no-reply@website.com
(Where the domain website.com has SPF configured to allow mail sent from the web server and/or SMTP gateway IP addresses. no-reply is used because the "sender" is Website Visitor, and there is no valid address we can use here – it would be silly to allow replies to go to info@website.com.)
This is unfortunate, because the convenience of being able to use email for CRM and easily Reply to the person behind the email is gone. I can't think of a better solution. I have solicited MailChannels to change their policy for sending Reply-Toemails through junk IP addresses, to no effect.
answered May 19 at 0:49
Quinn ComendantQuinn Comendant
411213
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "2"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f472511%2fdoes-return-path-or-reply-to-affect-email-deliverability%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I haven't seen any that would hold it against you. A quick check of a few spam scanners indicates that if it's even noticed, it must not be a large factor in their spaminess decision.
If you have all your other ducks in a row (SPF or SenderID, DKIM, and DNS) the rest of the message body/headers have significantly less impact on the spaminess score of the message.
answered Jan 25 '13 at 20:35
Chris SChris S
73.9k10107202
add a comment |
I haven't seen any that would hold it against you. A quick check of a few spam scanners indicates that if it's even noticed, it must not be a large factor in their spaminess decision.
If you have all your other ducks in a row (SPF or SenderID, DKIM, and DNS) the rest of the message body/headers have significantly less impact on the spaminess score of the message.
answered Jan 25 '13 at 20:35
Chris SChris S
73.9k10107202
add a comment |
I haven't seen any that would hold it against you. A quick check of a few spam scanners indicates that if it's even noticed, it must not be a large factor in their spaminess decision.
If you have all your other ducks in a row (SPF or SenderID, DKIM, and DNS) the rest of the message body/headers have significantly less impact on the spaminess score of the message.
answered Jan 25 '13 at 20:35
Chris SChris S
73.9k10107202
I haven't seen any that would hold it against you. A quick check of a few spam scanners indicates that if it's even noticed, it must not be a large factor in their spaminess decision.
If you have all your other ducks in a row (SPF or SenderID, DKIM, and DNS) the rest of the message body/headers have significantly less impact on the spaminess score of the message.
answered Jan 25 '13 at 20:35
Chris SChris S
73.9k10107202
answered Jan 25 '13 at 20:35
Chris SChris S
73.9k10107202
answered Jan 25 '13 at 20:35
Chris SChris S
73.9k10107202
answered Jan 25 '13 at 20:35
Chris SChris S
73.9k10107202
73.9k10107202
add a comment |
add a comment |
I have experienced that setting the Reply-To header does degrade deliverability, in two ways:
MailChannels (a SMTP sending service that we use) will funnel messages with aReply-Tothrough their "junk pool" of IP addresses, almost all of which are on some blacklist (usually at least UCEPROTECT1).- SpamAssassin's
FREEMAIL_REPLYTO*rules trigger ifReply-Tocontains a freemail address (gmail, yahoo, hotmail, et al) which doesn't match theFromheader (which is often true in this use case, since theFromheader can't be set arbitrarily because of SPF.
If these guys are suspicious of Reply-To, perhaps others are too?
Since we depend on these systems, and want good deliverability, we must use these from headers:
Envelope-From: no-reply@website.com
From: no-reply@website.com
(Where the domain website.com has SPF configured to allow mail sent from the web server and/or SMTP gateway IP addresses. no-reply is used because the "sender" is Website Visitor, and there is no valid address we can use here – it would be silly to allow replies to go to info@website.com.)
This is unfortunate, because the convenience of being able to use email for CRM and easily Reply to the person behind the email is gone. I can't think of a better solution. I have solicited MailChannels to change their policy for sending Reply-Toemails through junk IP addresses, to no effect.
answered May 19 at 0:49
Quinn ComendantQuinn Comendant
411213
add a comment |
I have experienced that setting the Reply-To header does degrade deliverability, in two ways:
MailChannels (a SMTP sending service that we use) will funnel messages with aReply-Tothrough their "junk pool" of IP addresses, almost all of which are on some blacklist (usually at least UCEPROTECT1).- SpamAssassin's
FREEMAIL_REPLYTO*rules trigger ifReply-Tocontains a freemail address (gmail, yahoo, hotmail, et al) which doesn't match theFromheader (which is often true in this use case, since theFromheader can't be set arbitrarily because of SPF.
If these guys are suspicious of Reply-To, perhaps others are too?
Since we depend on these systems, and want good deliverability, we must use these from headers:
Envelope-From: no-reply@website.com
From: no-reply@website.com
(Where the domain website.com has SPF configured to allow mail sent from the web server and/or SMTP gateway IP addresses. no-reply is used because the "sender" is Website Visitor, and there is no valid address we can use here – it would be silly to allow replies to go to info@website.com.)
This is unfortunate, because the convenience of being able to use email for CRM and easily Reply to the person behind the email is gone. I can't think of a better solution. I have solicited MailChannels to change their policy for sending Reply-Toemails through junk IP addresses, to no effect.
answered May 19 at 0:49
Quinn ComendantQuinn Comendant
411213
add a comment |
I have experienced that setting the Reply-To header does degrade deliverability, in two ways:
MailChannels (a SMTP sending service that we use) will funnel messages with aReply-Tothrough their "junk pool" of IP addresses, almost all of which are on some blacklist (usually at least UCEPROTECT1).- SpamAssassin's
FREEMAIL_REPLYTO*rules trigger ifReply-Tocontains a freemail address (gmail, yahoo, hotmail, et al) which doesn't match theFromheader (which is often true in this use case, since theFromheader can't be set arbitrarily because of SPF.
If these guys are suspicious of Reply-To, perhaps others are too?
Since we depend on these systems, and want good deliverability, we must use these from headers:
Envelope-From: no-reply@website.com
From: no-reply@website.com
(Where the domain website.com has SPF configured to allow mail sent from the web server and/or SMTP gateway IP addresses. no-reply is used because the "sender" is Website Visitor, and there is no valid address we can use here – it would be silly to allow replies to go to info@website.com.)
This is unfortunate, because the convenience of being able to use email for CRM and easily Reply to the person behind the email is gone. I can't think of a better solution. I have solicited MailChannels to change their policy for sending Reply-Toemails through junk IP addresses, to no effect.
answered May 19 at 0:49
Quinn ComendantQuinn Comendant
411213
I have experienced that setting the Reply-To header does degrade deliverability, in two ways:
MailChannels (a SMTP sending service that we use) will funnel messages with aReply-Tothrough their "junk pool" of IP addresses, almost all of which are on some blacklist (usually at least UCEPROTECT1).- SpamAssassin's
FREEMAIL_REPLYTO*rules trigger ifReply-Tocontains a freemail address (gmail, yahoo, hotmail, et al) which doesn't match theFromheader (which is often true in this use case, since theFromheader can't be set arbitrarily because of SPF.
If these guys are suspicious of Reply-To, perhaps others are too?
Since we depend on these systems, and want good deliverability, we must use these from headers:
Envelope-From: no-reply@website.com
From: no-reply@website.com
(Where the domain website.com has SPF configured to allow mail sent from the web server and/or SMTP gateway IP addresses. no-reply is used because the "sender" is Website Visitor, and there is no valid address we can use here – it would be silly to allow replies to go to info@website.com.)
This is unfortunate, because the convenience of being able to use email for CRM and easily Reply to the person behind the email is gone. I can't think of a better solution. I have solicited MailChannels to change their policy for sending Reply-Toemails through junk IP addresses, to no effect.
answered May 19 at 0:49
Quinn ComendantQuinn Comendant
411213
answered May 19 at 0:49
Quinn ComendantQuinn Comendant
411213
answered May 19 at 0:49
Quinn ComendantQuinn Comendant
411213
answered May 19 at 0:49
Quinn ComendantQuinn Comendant
411213
411213
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Server Fault!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f472511%2fdoes-return-path-or-reply-to-affect-email-deliverability%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
hOUg,PfKM6EuDk7
