[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Proper way to specify "Do Not Reply"?

1998-10-08 09:08:01
VPIM, RFC 2421 suggests using:


for unrepliable messages.  In this case, message originating from a
telephone-answering application cannot be replied to.
RFC 2421 prohibits replies to this special-case address by conforming

Greg V.

From:         Paul Overell[SMTP:paulo(_at_)turnpike(_dot_)com]
Sent:         Thursday, October 08, 1998 10:33 AM
To:   ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject:      Re: Proper way to specify "Do Not Reply"?

In article 
Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu writes
While discussing a brokked email system at a well-known ISP that is
generating unreplyable messages, a co-worker asked me what the proper
way to *specify* that no reply is to be attempted.  I was stumped.

Yes, you can point Reply-To: at a bogus address, or a /dev/null, but
I can't think of any way to specifically flag a message as "FYI only,
no reply desired".  Am I just caffeine-defficient today, or is there
in fact no such beast?

And if there isn't, should there be?

For news, draft-ietf-usefor-article-01.txt suggests

        Reply-To: <>

analogous to the empty SMTP reverse path, but this isn't RFC822

An empty group has valid RFC822 syntax, it might have the desired

        Reply-To: "FYI only, no reply desired":;

Paul Overell                                        T U R N P I K E  Ltd