🚀 go-pugleaf

    I don't think that rfc822 CLEARLY pointed out that
automatically generated replies should have a "return-path" of
null.  In fact, rfc822 discusses computer generated messages and
states that since computer programs cannot be held accountable,
the SENDER field of the message should contain an path of the
human responsible.  This means that a good header specification
resulting from a demon could be:

From:   Demon@Node...
Sender:  Demon-fixers@node..

    By rfc822, Demon-fixers will recieve "notices of any
problems in transport or delivery of the original messages"
while Demon@node will recieve any replies.  This works very well
except when the server/demon doesn't want any replies sent to
it.  It can either discard them as the arrive, or since a
REPLY-TO field is the address that "the reply should go to..
and not the FROM field" the demon could simply indicate on its
messages that it does not wish replies (of any kind, automatic
or 'real') by including a REPLY-TO field of Null.

Comments?

-- John Curran
-- Umass/Amherst