# Is there any reason use "no-reply@example.com" for author tag in rss?

**URL:** <https://meta.discourse.org/t/is-there-any-reason-use-no-reply-example-com-for-author-tag-in-rss/22371>\
**Category:** Feature\
**Created:** [21. November 2014 um 03:02 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/is-there-any-reason-use-no-reply-example-com-for-author-tag-in-rss/22371 "2014-11-21T03:02:19Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gerhard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/gerhard/32/119479_2.png) [@gerhard](https://meta.discourse.org/u/gerhard)\
**Post date:** [21. November 2014 um 23:52 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/is-there-any-reason-use-no-reply-example-com-for-author-tag-in-rss/22371/4 "2014-11-21T23:52:06Z")

</div>

From the [RSS 2.0 Specification](http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification#ltauthorgtSubelementOfLtitemgt):

> `<author>` is an optional sub-element of `<item>`.
> 
> It’s the email address of the author of the item. For newspapers and magazines syndicating via RSS, the author is the person who wrote the article that the `<item>` describes. For collaborative weblogs, the author of the item might be different from the managing editor or webmaster. For a weblog authored by a single individual it would make sense to omit the element.
> 
> `<author>lawyer@boyer.net (Lawyer Boyer)</author>`

I guess it could be removed since it’s optional and there is already a link to the author’s profile page in the `<description>`. I get that we don’t want to disclose the user’s mail address, but the no-reply address doesn’t make much sense either.

My feed reader shows it like this:  
 ![](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/meta/original/3X/d/1/d125aa7786c631283600f0d8e4d6e2bf33b4b51f.png)

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/is-there-any-reason-use-no-reply-example-com-for-author-tag-in-rss/22371)._