Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.mail.headers > #27

Re: Reply-To

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Followups directed to: comp.mail.headers

Show all headers | View raw

"ClausAßmann"  wrote in message 
news:5710e272$0$44984$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Dave DeHanas  wrote:
> Is a Reply-To header field required, and is "Reply-To: <>" valid?

1. This newsgroup is about the sendmail program, not generic e-mail 
questions.
2. There are RFCs that specify the format of e-mail, e.g., RFC 2822 et.al. 
Have you checked those?
...
===============
[Note the follow-up to group.]

In addition to that which is stated in the RFC, certain other "valid" 
constructs will be treated as spam.

E.g.  "Reply-To:  <x@y.invalid>"  - Use of the ".invalid" TLD in an optional 
header is a clear sign of spam.  That is not in any RFC (other than implied 
in RFCs 2606 and 6761).

A "null" mailbox such as "<>" would also be considered spam.  A null mailbox 
is valid only in the SMTP MAIL FROM statement, not message headers.

Back to comp.mail.headers | Previous | Next | Find similar

Thread

Re: Reply-To "D. Stussy" <spam@spam.org> - 2016-04-15 13:09 -0700

csiph-web