From RFC 822:
In all cases, addresses in the "From" field
must be machine-usable (addr-specs) and may not contain named
lists (groups).
What do you suggest a system which has no identifiable sender put in the
"from" field? Bogus(_at_)bogus?
My reading of 822 (4.4.2) is far less clear, but my reading suggests group
notations would be inappropriate there as well since they should identify
the singular sender of a message when it is other than the sender.
Greg V.
----------
From: Chris Newman[SMTP:Chris(_dot_)Newman(_at_)innosoft(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 1998 1:52 PM
To: ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Proper way to specify "Do Not Reply"?
On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg) wrote:
VPIM, RFC 2421 suggests using:
non-mail-user(_at_)domain
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
systems.
Hopefully most implementors will ignore that prohibition on the grounds it
violates the more important full-standard requirement (RFC 1123, 5.2.16)
that the local-part is uninterpreted except by the system named on the
right-hand-side.
I definitely prefer the empty group address for this purpose:
Reply-To: Please Don't Reply:;
It fits RFC 822 syntax and has an obvious interpretation without any
layering violation.
- Chris