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

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

>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@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.Newman@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 	Thursday, October 08, 1998 1:52 PM
> To: 	ietf-822@xxxxxxx
> 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@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
>