Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id NAA22743; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 13:40:14 -0400
X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 13:40:13 EDT
Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from info.cren.net by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id NAA22718; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 13:40:10 -0400
Received: from [192.52.179.12] (conklin-180c.cren.net [192.52.179.12]) by info.cren.net (8.6.12/8.6.4 (CREN)) with SMTP id NAA25024; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 13:39:57 -0400
Message-Id: <199508161739.NAA25024@info.cren.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 13:42:40 +0100
To: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>, ietf-drums <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>
From: conklin@info.cren.net (Jim Conklin)
Subject: Re: Does "References:" form threads?

At  6:25 PM 8/16/95 +0200, Jacob Palme wrote:
>One possibillity would be to define this difference in e-mail in
>a way which is equivalent to current practice in Usenet News,
>i.e. to say that "In-Reply-To" is recommended for personally
>addressed replies and "References" for group replies.

  I don't have a philosophical problem with this, but I don't believe that
we'll ever succeed in getting that distinction used by the
non-computer-professional unless we can figure out some way to have the MUA
make the distinction.

Jim