Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <199508162142.RAA25128@wilma.cs.utk.edu>
From: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>
To: Chris Newman <chrisn+@cmu.edu>
cc: drums@CS.UTK.EDU, moore@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: "Reply-To" 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 16 Aug 1995 16:35:03 EDT."
             <808605303.21217.0@nifty.andrew.cmu.edu> 
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 17:42:04 -0400
Sender: moore@CS.UTK.EDU

> > 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 disagree with your identification of the most common reason.  I
> decide which of those to functions to use based on whether I'm adding
> to the group discussion, or sending a private note to the author.  And
> I do both regularly.

Sorry, I just realized that my statement was imprecise.
Let me restate my reason and see if it makes more sense:

I disagree with the premise of the wide-reply-to draft: which is that
the sender needs a new way to specify how the recipient should 
"reply to sender" from how she should "reply to all other recipients".

The most common reason for the sender wanting to specify them separately,
seems to be because the sender wants to use Reply-to instead of From
to specify his real mailbox.

> Look at news as an example of how mailing lists should be dealt with.
> News has distinct "reply-to" and "followup-to" headers both of which
> have very clear meanings and both of which are useful.  The problem
> with mailing lists is that they have no "followup-to" equivalent, so
> people misuse "reply-to" for that purpose.
> 
> People will continue to use "reply-to" as the mailing list equivalent
> to "followup-to" until an alternative is available.  We can either
> live with the status quo, or provide the desired alternative.

One reason that I like the idea of having the sender use "From" to 
specify where "reply to sender" should go, is that it's already 
supported by the vast majority of mail user agents out there, including
those for which "reply" *always* means "reply to the one-and-only 
From address that I know about" as well as the more enlightened
ones that actually know about things like To, Cc, and Reply-to.

Even if we have to add a new Authorized-By: header to indicate
on whose behalf the message was sent (as opposed to where 
replies-to-sender should go), we don't break compatibility with
much of the installed base, since the field is basically write-only,
and it's only used when the authorizing users aren't the same
as those to which replies-to-sender should be sent.

So I'm proposing that we stretch "From" a tiny bit, from "the
addresses of those on whose behalf the message was sent" to 
"the addresses to which replies-to-sender should be directed"
in the name of better interoperability (immediately) at little cost.

Keith