Re: Electron Workshop spam

On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 10:00:54 +1100
Al Maclang via linux-aus <[email protected]> wrote:
> Employing a no-reply Reply-To address constitutes a blatant violation
> of the Spam Act 2003 (Cth). Refer to the full legislation here:
> https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A01214/latest/text

Which section specifically?  I don't recall there being such a
provision in there.  In any case my understanding was that the Act only
applies to unsolicited *commercial* messages, which does not appear to
be the case here.

You *could* perhaps make a cogent argument that using a no-reply address
in any way would violate at least the spirit, if not the letter, of
RFC5322 and that the relaxed rules for group addressing syntax provided
by RFC6854 provide a more suitable way to achieve the same effect ...
but even now, 13 years later, as far as I can tell very few postmasters
have even got around to reading RFC6854.  And in any case the relevant
bits of RFC5322 are all only SHOULDs, not MUSTs.

I accept, as I'm sure most people here do, that using no-reply addresses
in Reply-To fields is not a particularly nice (nor even a sensible)
thing to do.  Hopefully EW will fix that (if they have not done so
already) now that it has been brought to their attention.

But to accuse EW of *breaking the law* just for doing that strikes me
as *far* too much of stretch, even if it were deliberate (especially
when others on the list have already suggested that it was most likely
just an accidental misconfiguration).

Regards,


J.
_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/linux-aus

To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to
linux-aus-unsubscribe-cunTk1MwBs8iFSDQTTA3OBCuuivNXqWP@public.gmane.org