> 'noreply' addresses aren't bogus as such; they're simply designed as
> send-only. This is *extremely* common.
It is also extremely annoying. Regardless of what the sender wishes,
people will wind up trying to send email back to the sender address. If
that email is rejected or, worse, the destination is not responding or
gives 4xx failures all the time, the sender pisses off everyone who has
to deal with that.
(Not responding/etc hosts are worse than rejection because then all the
email back to the sender holds a nice get-together in your outgoing mail
queues.)
If you want a noreply address, send it to /dev/null. In extreme
cases, set up a lightweight email server that claims to accept all
email but throws it away without even writing anything to disk.
If callout verification could block such 'clever' senders without
any other side effects or misfires, I would support it 110%. These
senders deserve to have their email fail.
- cks
