# Best Practices on reply-by-email **URL:** \ **Category:** Community Building\ **Tags:** data-explorer\ **Created:** [8월 31, 2018, 4:27오후 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/best-practices-on-reply-by-email/96107 "2018-08-31T16:27:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 1
**Author:** ![pfaffman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/pfaffman/32/120154_2.png) [@pfaffman](https://meta.discourse.org/u/pfaffman)\ **Post date:** [8월 31, 2018, 4:27오후 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/best-practices-on-reply-by-email/96107/1 "2018-08-31T16:27:50Z")
I’m working with a site where I’d enabled reply-by-mail, but I’m thinking now that it’s not a great idea. Here are a few reasons that I have for disabling reply-by-email. Am I missing something? - if users can reply by email and can interact with the site without visiting it, then we’re losing ad revenue, although small. - I was concerned that disabling reply-by-mail would also disable being able to email in to a group, but in my test that seems not to be the case. (Unless there was some caching problem and I did my test before the setting was _really_ off). - Things like “your message is too short, try again” are even more annoying in email than they are on the site. (Of course they’re “annoying” only in the rare cases where someone really did have some reason for a short message and just a ❤ wouldn’t do.) Is there some reason **not** to disable reply by mail? It’s a convenience that I use very rarely here; I think that for our community it’ll be OK to turn it off. Right? ### And on a tangentially related note . . . Another problem that we had was a rookie mistake . . . I had a publicly advertised address getting delivered to a group. . . and that address got picked up by a 100X/day spammer. If you’re going to have an address get sent to a group (or category) by un-confirmed users, you want to make sure that you’ve got a spam filter! --- _[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/best-practices-on-reply-by-email/96107)._