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

[Paul Overell <paulo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In article <199810081439.KAA07134@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx 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
conformant.



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

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


-- 
Paul Overell                                        T U R N P I K E  Ltd