Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id NAA23491; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 13:52:04 -0400
X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 13:52:03 EDT
Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id NAA23484; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 13:52:01 -0400
Received: from localhost by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.11c-UTK)
          id NAA24405; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 13:51:57 -0400
Message-Id: <199508161751.NAA24405@wilma.cs.utk.edu>
X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
From: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>
To: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
cc: ietf-drums <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>, moore@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: "Reply-To" 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 16 Aug 1995 18:13:21 +0200."
             <Pine.SUN.3.91.950816174740.21591A-100000@ester> 
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 13:51:50 -0400
Sender: moore@CS.UTK.EDU

> The suggestion to define "Reply-To" as indicating the senders
> wish is OK for me, but not enough. The sender can have different
> wishes for where different kinds of replies should go.

I don't think we can afford to give the sender so many options.
A reply-to header that expresses the sender's wishes is sufficient
in 95% of the cases.  The other 5% of the cases will need half a
dozen different headers to satisfy them -- which won't work anyway
because they're not widely used.  Things get even worse if we try
to handle the cases where the list manager also wants to specify 
where replies go.  

Let's clarify the 95% case, and let the marginal cases be handled
by enabled mail.

Keith