Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id TAA19165; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 19:35:09 -0400
X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 19:35:08 EDT
Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from leibniz.math.psu.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id TAA19140; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 19:35:03 -0400
Received: from augusta.math.psu.edu (barr@augusta.math.psu.edu [146.186.132.2]) by leibniz.math.psu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id TAA23571 for <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 19:35:00 -0400
Received: from localhost (barr@localhost) by augusta.math.psu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id TAA06129 for <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 19:34:58 -0400
Message-Id: <199508162334.TAA06129@augusta.math.psu.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.2 7/18/95
To: 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> 
References: <199508162142.RAA25128@wilma.cs.utk.edu> 
X-Face: $+9-wYg.[->94HJ{go[7Q]E!K&hUg7ZhLyCMyq_FU*ca0GazE>^/2BKLcK0bP-'%;Nn?M<m
 c~dP_j^A?M5Jw{+a7vcMu|M-mq"V4AzKq?mPMMNP\;f8J0n\-L]ODU)YMP;-pF>+am,jlSP>1K$iz@
 %'v'FEW{@](U&Ed/}>ju3Ctlr!XwJ27Q)7h2a%"`sz;j:/3EC[mXi@*X@HE1]'ddq$ZX"ePsMyTkeg
 >zdML.SV<t=R>vX1W`adGIUD
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 19:34:57 -0400
From: Dave Barr <barr@math.psu.edu>

	IMHO the biggest use of Reply-To is in mailing lists, to "encourage"
replies to the list.  This is something you should NEVER use "From"
for, because it destroys the ability for the user to reply privately
to the sender.
	I don't consider usage of "Reply-To:" as a workaround for broken From:
lines a valid use.  I don't think it is used that way often, though, either.
I have no problems with the drums document saying that this sort of use is
to be discouraged or even forbidden.
	A solution to a broken From is to fix the From line, and that IMHO
should be the one and only reason to ever "modify" the From line.
IMHO lists should never touch From: (or To:, for that matter) and use
Reply-To if needed.

MUAs should indeed be modified to allow the user select from the set of
addresses presented in "From:", "Reply-To:", and "To:" for each and
every message.  To me that is the only sane (and portable) solution to
the problem.  (and I think the drums document should explain this in
its section on MUA behavior)

--Dave