Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site gould9.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!burdvax!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!gould9!joel
From: joel@gould9.UUCP (Joel West)
Newsgroups: net.mail.headers
Subject: Re: A suggestion for preventing machine mail loops
Message-ID: <207@gould9.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Dec-85 10:44:57 EST
Article-I.D.: gould9.207
Posted: Thu Dec 12 10:44:57 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Dec-85 04:05:55 EST
References: <537@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: CACI, Inc. -- La Jolla, Calif.
Lines: 26
Summary: use postmaster

In article <537@brl-tgr.ARPA>, JCURRAN%UMASS.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA writes:
>     It occurs to me that the rfc822 document has very good
> provisions for handling machine generated mail and preventing
> 'loops' per se.  In a server or demon, one can simply provide
> the following set of fields in a out-going message:
>
> From:  Server-name@node
> Sender: Person@node
> Reply-to: <>

I would be inclined to use
        Reply-To: Postmaster
or perhaps, even better,
        Reply-To: Postal-Complaints
:-)

However, some mail systems don't look at Reply-To.  And, in the UUCP
world (remember us, guys), this will usually not contain an explicit
path, so that if the message is going very far, it will never
make it back.

--
        Joel West               (619) 457-9681
        CACI, Inc. Federal, 3344 N. Torrey Pines Ct., La Jolla, CA  92037
        {cbosgd,ihnp4,pyramid,sdcsvax,ucla-cs}!gould9!joel
        gould9!joel@nosc.ARPA