topic Re: 'Reject with reason', as the Action defined, within a Rule, within TalkTalk webmail in Email

'Reject with reason', as the Action defined, within a Rule, within TalkTalk webmail

Billx — Sat, 26 Apr 2025 18:44:04 GMT

Upon navigating in webmail via,

Cogwheel-->All settings-->Scroll down until one sees Rules-->Rules-->Add new rule,

defining a new rule requires setting an 'Action'

The action I want is 'Reject with reason', and this requires some sort of reason, to be entered in the adjacent text box. I usually say 'Rejected by recipient'. I don't know how else to express it

The rule works after testing it between 2 of the TalkTalk email addresses.

Emails are rejected at the recipient's email address, but there is no feedback with a bounce message.

So, would not a bounce message be received by some email address? Then by which email address?

Do the OX people need to do some further work?

If a bounce message is not returned to the sender, then there no point in giving a reason in the text box.

Thank you for your patience.

---

Edit: Obviously this is to deal with some of the incoming spams.

I had complete peace before the 19th April, for 1 month. Since then I have received 14 spams.

Bill

Re: 'Reject with reason', as the Action defined, within a Rule, within TalkTalk webmail

ferguson — Sat, 26 Apr 2025 19:39:44 GMT

Have you looked at the help article? I am not sure what you suggest is possible.

https://community.talktalk.co.uk/t5/Articles/Using-TalkTalk-Webmail/ta-p/2204440

Re: 'Reject with reason', as the Action defined, within a Rule, within TalkTalk webmail

Billx — Sat, 26 Apr 2025 23:33:25 GMT

Yes, @ferguson , I've checked the article. There is no detail, like what I am looking for, for this particular command.

I don't know if you've seen what the 'Reject with reason' 'Action' looks like.

Adjacent to it is a text box. And I assume that it needs me to enter the reason for rejecting emails from a certain matching email address.

Well, that's easy enough.

What I want is an acknowledgement, that an email has been rejected, and whether my reason for rejection has been sent to the sender of the email.

Isn't that fair enough?

Probably, only TalkTalk or the OX people could answer that.

Bill

Re: 'Reject with reason', as the Action defined, within a Rule, within TalkTalk webmail

Gliwmaeden2 — Sun, 27 Apr 2025 06:40:06 GMT

If these spam emails are the sort that could contain dodgy links etc, you don't want the scam artists kept informed. That simply confirms and validates that your email address does exist. Better that they don't know for sure.

A bounce back message is only useful if there's a problem with your emails and a valid sender needs to be kept informed [for example "recipient's inbox is full"].

It's only "the system" that needs to know you want to reject a sender - not wise to inform the sender themselves.

Re: 'Reject with reason', as the Action defined, within a Rule, within TalkTalk webmail

Billx — Sun, 27 Apr 2025 17:14:59 GMT

Hi, @Gliwmaeden2

I am fully aware of your point in paragraph one.

I am currently in a testing mode, because I don't fully understand the 'Reject with reason' command.

As I said above, I tested between 2 of my own TalkTalk email addresses, and it succeeds and the recipient doesn't receive the email.

However no other feedback is received, so I can not complete the test.

As I said, the command takes a reason in text, being the reason why I rejected that email address.

So, the question remains. Who is that reason communicated to?

Obviously, I also need to test it outside of TalkTalk.

Also, I am not too worried about a few spammers having my email address.

The spammers I might reply to, already have my email address.

But they will still find it very hard to bother my system.

Bill

Re: 'Reject with reason', as the Action defined, within a Rule, within TalkTalk webmail

fr8ys — Sun, 27 Apr 2025 16:46:15 GMT

You say you are in testing mode. Is this official for TalkTalk or your own personal benefit?

If the former, any testing is subject to NDAs and you should seek the support of the trials team direct and not post issues on the open forum.

Re: 'Reject with reason', as the Action defined, within a Rule, within TalkTalk webmail

Billx — Sun, 27 Apr 2025 17:35:47 GMT

Oh, no, @fr8ys . Its for my own use. I want to be able to properly use the 'Reject with reason' command.

Bill

Re: 'Reject with reason', as the Action defined, within a Rule, within TalkTalk webmail

fr8ys — Sun, 27 Apr 2025 17:44:09 GMT

@Billx another customer has raised this before and no reply has been forthcoming.

https://community.talktalk.co.uk/t5/Email/Reject-unwanted-email/td-p/3097197

As Ady has now left I really doubt you will get a response on this.

A search seems to suggest it doesn't work for other providers too, so I doubt it ever will as you wish.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=reject+email+with+reason+function&t=ofa&ia=web

Re: 'Reject with reason', as the Action defined, within a Rule, within TalkTalk webmail

Gliwmaeden2 — Sun, 27 Apr 2025 17:44:46 GMT

The command will be communicated to Talktalk's systems, not anybody else.

They are processing what you reject as Spam.

The spammer's send address will not be informed, because Talktalk's systems know it's spam for the reasons you have given it.

Re: 'Reject with reason', as the Action defined, within a Rule, within TalkTalk webmail

fr8ys — Sun, 27 Apr 2025 18:11:54 GMT

@Billx it's always a good idea to do a Google search before posting in the community when you wish to research an issue.

Adding TalkTalk to the end of a search will also bring up similar topics already raised on the forum and reduce the workload of staff and customers here repeating themselves.

Re: 'Reject with reason', as the Action defined, within a Rule, within TalkTalk webmail

Billx — Sun, 27 Apr 2025 18:44:24 GMT

@Gliwmaeden2

I didn't reject it as spam. I just rejected it. With the stated reason 'Rejected by recipient

So, how would TalkTalk know it is spam?

If it had known, it might have already rejected it on my behalf.

"The command will be communicated to TalkTalk's systems"

Can you tell me how you able to establish that?

And what does TalkTalk do with my little reason? Throw it in the bin?

EDIT: If TalkTalk will ignore the stated reason, the customer might as well use the 'Discard' command, which doesn't need any reason. But since this command is slightly different from 'Discard', then it might have an additional purpose.

Bill

Re: 'Reject with reason', as the Action defined, within a Rule, within TalkTalk webmail

Billx — Sun, 27 Apr 2025 18:28:32 GMT

@fr8ys

I thought this command was specific to TalkTalk and Open-Xchange.

Are you saying that it is wider than that?

Bill

Re: 'Reject with reason', as the Action defined, within a Rule, within TalkTalk webmail

fr8ys — Sun, 27 Apr 2025 20:15:35 GMT

@Billx look at the search link I included and you will see many comments regarding mail suppliers.

Re: 'Reject with reason', as the Action defined, within a Rule, within TalkTalk webmail

Billx — Sun, 27 Apr 2025 20:21:33 GMT

Thanks @fr8ys

I haven't done so yet. I will do so.

I thought it was exclusive to Open-Xchange

Bill

Re: 'Reject with reason', as the Action defined, within a Rule, within TalkTalk webmail

Billx — Sun, 27 Apr 2025 22:47:46 GMT

@fr8ys

I have re-read https://community.talktalk.co.uk/t5/Email/Reject-unwanted-email/td-p/3097197

and I had commented in that thread. That OP's problem was exactly my problem.

Ady hardly knew anything about the issue.

Ady did refer the issue to Open-Exchange, but they didn't respond.

I've also had a look at your other link, https://duckduckgo.com/?q=reject+email+with+reason+function&t=ofa&ia=web .

That link is a copy of a duckduckgo.com search, for the issue.

All the links on the 1st result page of the search, are quite useless.

They're are merely blogs about writing polite rejection letters and emails.

Nothing to do with the issue at hand.

But thanks for your suggestion.

I've also done some Google searches, with no success.

Bill