Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <199508161846.OAA24625@wilma.cs.utk.edu>
From: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>
To: Chris Newman <chrisn+@cmu.edu>
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 13:51:34 EDT."
             <808595494.21217.0@nifty.andrew.cmu.edu> 
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 14:46:38 -0400
Sender: moore@CS.UTK.EDU

> I agree with this sentiment, and with the sentiment that the present
> use of Reply-To for list replies should be discouraged.  I'd like to
> point out that a solution to both problems has already been written up
> in the internet draft:
> 
>         draft-myers-822-widereply-00.txt
> 
> which defines a new "Wide-Reply-To" header and deprecates the
> troublesome use of "Reply-To" on lists at the same time.  One possible
> way to conclude this discussion would be to request that the author
> forward this document for an extended last call as a proposed
> standard.

I disagree with the premise of the wide-reply-to draft: which is that
you need a separate way to specify "reply to sender" from 
"reply to all other recipients".  The most common reason for needing
to specify them separately seems to be because people want to use 
Reply-to instead of From to specify their real mailbox.  

I suggest that: