> We should NOT show a domain. Why not? It would be the real domain of the faker. This is no worse than if the faker used president@whitehousegovernment.org from the start, which he can always do. invalid@whitehousegovernment.org is even clearer. It makes it clearer to the user that something is wrong. And there won't be problems in validation later on. Either the response will bounce, or it will be delivered, or go to /dev/null at the fake server. In no case this is worse than if the faker used president@whitehousegovernment.org . Email addresses like `donotreply@` or `invalid@` to signify that responses will not be read have (unfortunately) become common recently, so this is in line with current practice. Users are used to that. We even have code to alert end users when they reply to such email addresses (wh, that the response might not be read. We should use that here.
Bug 1423437 Comment 16 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
> We should NOT show a domain. Why not? It would be the real domain of the faker. This is no worse than if the faker used president@whitehousegovernment.org from the start, which he can always do. invalid@whitehousegovernment.org is even clearer. It makes it clearer to the user that something is wrong. And there won't be problems in validation later on. Either the response will bounce, or it will be delivered, or go to /dev/null at the fake server. In no case this is worse than if the faker used president@whitehousegovernment.org . Email addresses like `donotreply@` or `invalid@` to signify that responses will not be read have (unfortunately) become common recently, so this is in line with current practice. Users are used to that. We even have code to alert end users when they reply to such email addresses, alerting that the response might not be read. We should use that here.