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

["Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)" <gregv@xxxxxxxxxx>]

VPIM, RFC 2421 suggests using:

	non-mail-user@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.

Greg V.

> ----------
> From: 	Paul Overell[SMTP:paulo@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 	Thursday, October 08, 1998 10:33 AM
> To: 	ietf-822@xxxxxxx
> Subject: 	Re: Proper way to specify "Do Not Reply"?
> 
> 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
>