Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id SAA14329; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 18:12:45 -0400
X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 18:12:44 EDT
Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from frankenstein.piermont.com by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id SAA14311; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 18:12:34 -0400
Received: from localhost (perry@localhost) by frankenstein.piermont.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA00205; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 18:11:58 -0400
Message-Id: <199508162211.SAA00205@frankenstein.piermont.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: frankenstein.piermont.com: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol
To: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>
cc: Chris Newman <chrisn+@cmu.edu>, drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: "Reply-To" 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 16 Aug 1995 17:42:04 EDT."
             <199508162142.RAA25128@wilma.cs.utk.edu> 
Reply-To: perry@piermont.com
X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 18:11:56 -0400
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>


Keith Moore writes:
> 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
[...]
> 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,
[...]

Well, we don't need Authorized-by, since we already have "Sender",
right?

.pm