Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.snarked.org!nv-184-1-9-234.dhcp.embarqhsd.net!not-for-mail From: "D. Stussy" Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail,comp.mail.headers Subject: Re: Reply-To Followup-To: comp.mail.headers Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 13:09:46 -0700 Lines: 1 Message-ID: References: <5710e272$0$44984$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> Reply-To: "D. Stussy" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 20:09:45 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: snarked.org; posting-host="nv-184-1-9-234.dhcp.embarqhsd.net:184.1.9.234"; logging-data="2476"; mail-complaints-to="newsmaster+complaints@snarked.org" X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <5710e272$0$44984$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3538.513 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3538.513 X-No-Archive: Yes Importance: Normal Xref: csiph.com comp.mail.sendmail:2824 comp.mail.headers:27 "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: " - 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.