Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id OAA26458; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 14:32:45 -0400 X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 14:32:44 EDT Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id OAA26451; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 14:32:40 -0400 Message-Id: <199508161832.OAA26451@CS.UTK.EDU> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9513; Wed, 16 Aug 95 20:28:05 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2b/1.8b) with RFC822 id 2534; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 20:28:05 +0200 Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 20:20:18 +0200 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: "Reply-To" To: Jacob Palme , Keith Moore cc: ietf-drums In-Reply-To: Message of Wed, 16 Aug 1995 13:51:50 -0400 from moore@CS.UTK.EDU On Wed, 16 Aug 1995 13:51:50 -0400 Keith Moore said: >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. 95% of what? Our main mail server delivered 868,891 messages yesterday, mostly mailing list traffic. Most of it had the "Reply-To:" usage you'd like to deprecate. AOL delivers about 1 million messages a day. That's the private Internet mail from its 3 million users (for all I know it's 1.5M and 4M since the last time I got the figures, but that's another story). Anyway, I'm afraid I'm not convinced that the "5%" you don't want to specify really do amount to just 5% of SMTP messages. Eric