Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id JAA17944; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 09:12:14 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.6); Wed, 25 Sep 1996 09:11:57 -0400 Received: from ng.netgate.net (root@ng.netgate.net [204.145.147.10]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id JAA17881; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 09:11:53 -0400 Received: from [205.214.160.45] (d16.netgate.net [205.214.160.48]) by ng.netgate.net (8.7.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id GAA02422; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 06:17:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: dcrocker@ng.netgate.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199609251152.NAA00250@fliptop.pilsnet.sunet.se> References: Your message of "Wed, 25 Sep 1996 10:45:02 BST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 05:44:47 -0700 To: Lars-Johan Liman From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: Preventing replying Cc: Philip Hazel , drums@cs.utk.edu At 4:52 AM -0700 9/25/96, Lars-Johan Liman wrote: >> Why not use the same standardized string as is used in MAIL FROM, viz ... >Syntax differs. You're allowed to have the SMTP command above with its >empty field, but you're not allowed to have an empty From: header >line, and I think that goes for Reply-To: as well. I took the original note as a suggestion to REPLICATE the mechanism. Struck me as a reasonable design suggestion, except that I believe we have the added constraint of not modifying the service. I.e., I think we have to make this particular style of use work without breaking or altering existing email systems. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker@brandenburg.com Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com Internet Mail Consortium http://www.imc.org, info@imc.org