Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <199508170122.VAA00519@frankenstein.piermont.com>
To: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>
cc: drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: "Reply-To" 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 16 Aug 1995 21:04:43 EDT."
             <199508170104.VAA25601@wilma.cs.utk.edu> 
Reply-To: perry@piermont.com
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 21:22:38 -0400
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>


Keith Moore writes:
> > 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"

I was under the impression that was the case in 822, no?

> 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.

Hmmm.

The following text is straight out of 822.

It seems to indicate that the desired functionality is already present
in the existing meaning of "Sender:", "From:" and "Reply-To:" under
RFC822. 

     A.2.  ORIGINATOR ITEMS

     A.2.1.  Author-sent

             George Jones logs into his host  as  "Jones".   He  sends
        mail himself.

            From:  Jones@Group.Org

        or

            From:  George Jones <Jones@Group.Org>

     A.2.2.  Secretary-sent

             George Jones logs in as Jones on his  host.   His  secre-
        tary,  who logs in as Secy sends mail for him.  Replies to the
        mail should go to George.

            From:    George Jones <Jones@Group>
            Sender:  Secy@Other-Group

     A.2.3.  Secretary-sent, for user of shared directory

             George Jones' secretary sends mail  for  George.  Replies
        should go to George.

            From:     George Jones<Shared@Group.Org>
            Sender:   Secy@Other-Group

        Note that there need not be a space between  "Jones"  and  the
        "<",  but  adding a space enhances readability (as is the case
        in other examples.

     A.2.4.  Committee activity, with one author

             George is a member of a committee.  He wishes to have any
        replies to his message go to all committee members.

            From:     George Jones <Jones@Host.Net>
            Sender:   Jones@Host
            Reply-To: The Committee: Jones@Host.Net,
                                     Smith@Other.Org,
                                     Doe@Somewhere-Else;

        Note  that  if  George  had  not  included  himself   in   the
        enumeration  of  The  Committee,  he  would not have gotten an
        implicit reply; the presence of the  "Reply-to"  field  SUPER-
        SEDES the sending of a reply to the person named in the "From"
        field.

     A.2.5.  Secretary acting as full agent of author

             George Jones asks his secretary  (Secy@Host)  to  send  a
        message for him in his capacity as Group.  He wants his secre-
        tary to handle all replies.

            From:     George Jones <Group@Host>
            Sender:   Secy@Host
            Reply-To: Secy@Host

     A.2.6.  Agent for user without online mailbox

             A friend  of  George's,  Sarah,  is  visiting.   George's
        secretary  sends  some  mail to a friend of Sarah in computer-
        land.  Replies should go to George, whose mailbox is Jones  at
        Registry.

            From:     Sarah Friendly <Secy@Registry>
            Sender:   Secy-Name <Secy@Registry>
            Reply-To: Jones@Registry.

     A.2.7.  Agent for member of a committee

             George's secretary sends out a message which was authored
        jointly by all the members of a committee.  Note that the name
        of the committee cannot be specified, since <group> names  are
        not permitted in the From field.

            From:   Jones@Host,
                    Smith@Other-Host,
                    Doe@Somewhere-Else
            Sender: Secy@SHost

> 
> Keith
> 

Perry