M
Mothomas
In Outlook 2003 I would like to send out emails sometimes but prevent
recipients from replying. Is that possible?
recipients from replying. Is that possible?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
D
dlw
no
B
Bill R
Permissions will restrict forwading and printing but not replying.
V
VanguardLH
in message
No. You cannot prevent anyone from *sending* to your e-mail account
whether it is a new e-mail, reply, or forwarded e-mail (because ALL
e-mails are actually new e-mails). Whether you *see* those e-mails
depending on what server- or client-side filtering you have on your
account: blacklists, spam filters, rules, view modes, etc.
If you want to toss shit, get ready to get hit with shit. So you want
to send spam, harassment e-mail, or poison letters to someone and
don't want to bother with any rebukes.
In Outlook 2003 I would like to send out emails sometimes but
prevent
recipients from replying. Is that possible?
No. You cannot prevent anyone from *sending* to your e-mail account
whether it is a new e-mail, reply, or forwarded e-mail (because ALL
e-mails are actually new e-mails). Whether you *see* those e-mails
depending on what server- or client-side filtering you have on your
account: blacklists, spam filters, rules, view modes, etc.
If you want to toss shit, get ready to get hit with shit. So you want
to send spam, harassment e-mail, or poison letters to someone and
don't want to bother with any rebukes.
V
VanguardLH
in message
Only if the sender and recipient are within the same Exchange
organization AND the company also runs an RM (Rights Manager) server.
Sending through SMTP means the recipient can do whatever the hell they
want with it. If they can see it, they can do whatever they want with
it.
...
Permissions will restrict forwading and printing but not replying.
Only if the sender and recipient are within the same Exchange
organization AND the company also runs an RM (Rights Manager) server.
Sending through SMTP means the recipient can do whatever the hell they
want with it. If they can see it, they can do whatever they want with
it.
J
Joe McGuire
Consider sending such e-mail from an account that allows such a tiny amount
of inbox storage that your message box will always be full--and as a
courtesy telling people not to reply. This will not actually prevent a
recipient from wasting his/her time replying, but since you won't get the
reply what's the difference?
of inbox storage that your message box will always be full--and as a
courtesy telling people not to reply. This will not actually prevent a
recipient from wasting his/her time replying, but since you won't get the
reply what's the difference?
F
F.H. Muffman
In Outlook 2003 I would like to send out emails sometimes but
Well, you could make sure that the address you send from isn't valid, but,
you'd need to make sure that no one actually owns whatever address you're
mailing from, and like Vanguard said, you can still be found, so if your
purposes are nefarious, you'd probably want to not do it.
If, on the other hand, you simply want to send mail from 'an unmonitored
alias' for a business, you might want to divulge information about what type
of mail server and what domain you're sending from.
No. You cannot prevent anyone from *sending* to your e-mail account
whether it is a new e-mail, reply, or forwarded e-mail (because ALL
e-mails are actually new e-mails). Whether you *see* those e-mails
depending on what server- or client-side filtering you have on your
account: blacklists, spam filters, rules, view modes, etc.
Well, you could make sure that the address you send from isn't valid, but,
you'd need to make sure that no one actually owns whatever address you're
mailing from, and like Vanguard said, you can still be found, so if your
purposes are nefarious, you'd probably want to not do it.
If, on the other hand, you simply want to send mail from 'an unmonitored
alias' for a business, you might want to divulge information about what type
of mail server and what domain you're sending from.
V
VanguardLH
in message
Since an e-mail (headers and body) could be very small, like under
1KB, it would highly unlikely that you could consume the disk quota of
an account to leave only that amount of disk space available. You
could repeatedly send thousands of tiny e-mails to yourself (single
character in Subject and body) and hope that less than a couple
hundred bytes were left to your disk quota; however, it is likely that
the measure of your disk quota is at a granularity where you will
still end up with more than enough free disk quota to accomodate tiny
e-mails.
If the OP had an account that refused to accept any replies, I doubt
it would be long until this sender showed up in personal blacklist
rules and DNSBLs. It the OP doesn't want to accept replies, his
victims probably doesn't want his crap and will filter him out.
...
Consider sending such e-mail from an account that allows such a tiny
amount of inbox storage that your message box will always be
full--and as a courtesy telling people not to reply. This will not
actually prevent a recipient from wasting his/her time replying, but
since you won't get the reply what's the difference?
Since an e-mail (headers and body) could be very small, like under
1KB, it would highly unlikely that you could consume the disk quota of
an account to leave only that amount of disk space available. You
could repeatedly send thousands of tiny e-mails to yourself (single
character in Subject and body) and hope that less than a couple
hundred bytes were left to your disk quota; however, it is likely that
the measure of your disk quota is at a granularity where you will
still end up with more than enough free disk quota to accomodate tiny
e-mails.
If the OP had an account that refused to accept any replies, I doubt
it would be long until this sender showed up in personal blacklist
rules and DNSBLs. It the OP doesn't want to accept replies, his
victims probably doesn't want his crap and will filter him out.
B
Brian Tillman
Joe McGuire said:Consider sending such e-mail from an account that allows such a tiny
amount of inbox storage that your message box will always be
full--and as a courtesy telling people not to reply. This will not
actually prevent a recipient from wasting his/her time replying, but
since you won't get the reply what's the difference?
Better yet would be to include a bogus sender address do the recipient can't
reply (but can waste time trying).
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.