Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <199508151830.OAA21445@wilma.cs.utk.edu>
From: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>
To: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>
cc: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>, ietf-drums <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>,
        moore@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: "Reply-To" 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 15 Aug 1995 14:38:28 +1000."
             <10390.808461508@munnari.OZ.AU> 
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 14:30:19 -0400
Sender: moore@CS.UTK.EDU

Robert Elz wrote:

> Some time ago (years ago), when faced with the same problem,
> I asked Dave Crocker (as the obvious authority) I believe, who
> gave an answer to this problem which has satisfied me ever since.
> 
> I'm sure he will correct me if I misrepresent him (or if by
> some chance it wasn't Dave at all) - the gist of this was that
> Reply-To is the sender's way of telling the recipient who the
> sender believes replies should be sent to.   The sender can
> add as many addresses there as needed to this field, and
> that way can indicate their preference for replies to any
> set of recipients they choose.
> 
> Given that interpretation of Reply-To there's really little
> doubt as to the behaviour of the recipient's mailer's basic
> "reply" command - it should send to the addresses in the
> Reply-To header, all of those addresses, and only those
> addresses.
> 
> Other "reply to these particular addresses" type commands
> in the mailer can do whatever they want.  "Reply to sender
> only" would simply select the From: line address.

I agree with this analysis.  (And I *didn't* ask Dave about it :)

I have long argued that Reply-to is an expression of the *sender's*
preference that replies be directed somewhere besides the default.  

It follows that list managers and the like should not mess with the
Reply-To field, because in doing so they are either overriding or
misrepresenting the sender's preference.

>     To eliminate this problem, my suggestion is that the text in RFC 822
>     is changed, to clearly indicate that "Reply-To" is *only* meant to
>     be used as a replacement for the names in the "From" field.
> 
> I cannot support this recommendation.

Neither can I.  In particular, Reply-to should not be used simply
because the sender is sending from a different account than she
usually uses.  RFC 822 is quite clear that the user is allowed to set
the From field (this is what Sender is for - in case the user has set
it to something that the sending system cannot authenticate).

>     If there is a need to indicate in the heading of a message a replacement
>     for all the recipients of a message, this could be handled by a new
>     heading field. One possible name for such a new heading field might
>     be "Followup-To",
>
> I would support this even less.   I'm afraid I absolutely
> cannot support the re-use of usenet header names for purposes
> that are not identical to their use in usenet.  Followup-To
> in usenet contains newsgroup names, which are nothing like
> e-mail addresses (local-part@fqdn), and hence would not be
> a suitable choice.

I agree with Robert here also, but for a different reason.  I think
people want followup-to or wide-reply-to so that mailing lists can
make sure that replies go back to the mailing list.  The problem is in
discussions that involve multiple lists and/or individuals, or between
a list and someone who isn't on the list.  In such cases the
discussion fragments.  Some will no doubt claim that this is a
feature, but in my experience, whether this is beneficial or harmful
is highly dependent on the type of discussion.  I'm reluctant to
define a mechanism for this since it is of such dubious value.

Keith