• Reply-To

    From D. Stussy@21:1/5 to Dave DeHanas on Fri Apr 15 13:09:46 2016
    XPost: comp.mail.sendmail

    "ClausA▀mann" 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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)