On Fri, 09 Oct 1998 09:43:27 +0800, Dave Crocker said:
"No reply desired" is essentially an annotation, or comment, to the
recipient. That is, it does not mean "prohibited". It is guidance.
I think a more "natural" way to achieve this is with a null mailbox, along
the line of:
Reply-to: No reply needed <>
but that 822 mandates doesn't permit this.
Might be worth changing the rules.
OK.. I smell an RFC draft here - is there a better way to address
this? I can't think of one, and it has nice symmetry with the
RFC821 null return path in the envelopes..
An entirely different approach is to note that CC: recipients are typically
not intended to send replies, whereas To: recipients typically are. Hence,
using a fake To address and having the real recipients in the CC field
achieves the stated, human intention, goal.
Yes, the only problem here is that what I was thinking was giving the
recipient MUA enough hints so that if the person hits the reply key,
the MUA can pop up a dialog saying "Are you *sure* you want to reply?
The sender didn't think a reply was a good idea...". And as we've
seen on some high-traffic IETF lists, having yourself listed in the
cc: field is no bar to sending replies.. ;)
Computer Systems Senior Engineer
Description: PGP signature