On Fri, 09 Oct 1998 09:43:27 +0800, Dave Crocker said: > "No reply desired" is essentially an annotation, or comment, to the > recipient. That is, it does not mean "prohibited". It is guidance. Exactly.. > I think a more "natural" way to achieve this is with a null mailbox, along > the line of: > > Reply-to: No reply needed <> > > but that 822 mandates doesn't permit this. > > Might be worth changing the rules. OK.. I smell an RFC draft here - is there a better way to address this? I can't think of one, and it has nice symmetry with the RFC821 null return path in the envelopes.. > An entirely different approach is to note that CC: recipients are typically > not intended to send replies, whereas To: recipients typically are. Hence, > using a fake To address and having the real recipients in the CC field > achieves the stated, human intention, goal. Yes, the only problem here is that what I was thinking was giving the recipient MUA enough hints so that if the person hits the reply key, the MUA can pop up a dialog saying "Are you *sure* you want to reply? The sender didn't think a reply was a good idea...". And as we've seen on some high-traffic IETF lists, having yourself listed in the cc: field is no bar to sending replies.. ;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech
Attachment:
pgp00025.pgp
Description: PGP signature