Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <199508160314.UAA09509@mastodon.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
To: conklin@info.cren.net (Jim Conklin)
From: Eric Allman <eric@CS.Berkeley.EDU>
cc: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>, ietf-drums <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>
Subject: Re: "Reply-To" 
In-reply-to: Mail from conklin@info.cren.net (Jim Conklin) 
	dated Tue, 15 Aug 1995 15:57:56 BST
	<199508151955.PAA12715@info.cren.net> 
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 20:14:54 -0700
Sender: eric@mastodon.CS.Berkeley.EDU

Yes, that's a good point -- but it still uses the semantic where
Reply-To: is a request that the value replace all reply addresses,
not just that from the From: line.

eric


============= In Reply To: ==============================================
: From:  conklin@info.cren.net (Jim Conklin)
: Subject:  Re: "Reply-To"
: Date:  Tue, 15 Aug 1995 15:57:56 +0100

: At  7:18 AM 8/15/95 -0700, Eric Allman wrote:
: > I certainly
: >have seen Reply-To: commonly used to indicate "please send
: >replies to me only and not to the distribution list" -- that is,
: >Reply-To: and From: are identical.
: 
:   At least as common (much more common in my personal experience) is its
: use to force replies to go to a list instead of the From: address, a
: feature that's handy for lists with inexperienced networkers whose replies
: would by default go to the originator of a list message rather than to the
: list as intended.  While this is a pain for experienced folks, it's
: frequently considered helpful by less experienced users of lists.
: 
: Jim
: 
: