Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id VAA24440; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 21:04:58 -0400
X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 21:04:53 EDT
Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id VAA24431; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 21:04:51 -0400
Received: from LOCALHOST by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.11c-UTK)
          id VAA25601; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 21:04:50 -0400
Message-Id: <199508170104.VAA25601@wilma.cs.utk.edu>
X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
From: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>
To: perry@piermont.com
cc: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>, Chris Newman <chrisn+@cmu.edu>,
        drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: "Reply-To" 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 16 Aug 1995 19:00:33 EDT."
             <199508162300.TAA00272@frankenstein.piermont.com> 
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 21:04:43 -0400
Sender: moore@CS.UTK.EDU

> Whats the advantage here over 822?

It would allow us to use the From field to mean 
"the addresses to which reply-to-sender should be sent"
while retaining the ability to specify
the addresses of those who authorized sending the message
and in a way which is compatible with existing user agents.

Keith