Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <199508162221.SAA15194@CS.UTK.EDU>
Date:        Thu, 17 Aug 1995 00:11:08 +0200
From: Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE>
Subject:     Re: "Reply-To"
To: Chris Newman <chrisn+@cmu.edu>, Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>
cc: drums@CS.UTK.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message of Wed, 16 Aug 1995 17:42:04 -0400 from moore@CS.UTK.EDU

On Wed, 16 Aug 1995 17:42:04 -0400 Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU> said:

>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.

You  seem to  forget that  nowadays a  lot of  mail is  sent to  computer
programs,  as opposed  to  human  beings. Today,  "From:"  is the  person
sending the message (and issuing the  instruction to the program). If you
change it to have the meaning  of the current "Reply-To:" field, you will
break a lot of  applications and make a lot of  unhappy users. Or rather,
your change  will be ignored  and people will continue  using "Reply-To:"
the way they're doing today, because the customer is always right.

Generally speaking, you can't make a change that significantly alters the
current meaning without  a Darn Good Reason - a  reason that sales people
can explain to  their customers in a few minutes,  and without losing the
sale. Remember,  if you don't provide  what the users want,  someone else
will.  It's a  free  market, and  the people  who  ultimately select  the
standards are  the users. So you  have to make sure  that whatever change
you are  proposing doesn't break  things users  have been relying  on for
years.

  Eric