Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <199505311849.OAA00967@augusta.math.psu.edu>
To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: getting started 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 29 May 1995 18:15:59 EDT."
             <199505292216.SAA05139@wilma.cs.utk.edu> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 14:49:50 -0400
From: Dave Barr <barr@math.psu.edu>

>Our first order of business should be to identify problems with the
>existing mail protocol documents.

Putting my mailing list hat on, I can identify some serious present
sources of confusion:

1. When a MTA needs to generate a bounce message, what is the correct
   address to use?  (answer: envelope FROM).  Granted there are gateways
   which destroy this out-of-band address, but they should not be allowed
   to coexist with the Internet mail system.  Having bounces go to
   the Reply-To address has been a source of much pain and suffering.

2. When a person activates the "reply" function of their MUA, what addresses
   should go in the header?  Must the MUA support a "reply-all" function?
   (IMHO yes)  If so, what addresses should go in the header?

3. What should be done with the current return-receipt-to mechanism?
   I'm aware of the existence of another working group to develop
   improvements in this area, but I think the current system should
   be clarified.  Specifically, _what_ address should be sent a
   return-receipt message, and under what circumstanses should a
   return-receipt message NOT be sent.   (or should we just skip this
   over, since the Return-Receipt-To header has never been formally
   defined?  If so I suggest that this document say MTAs should not support
   return-receipts until a standard arrives.  It should also state that
   The Errors-To: header must not be supported and should not be added.)

--Dave