Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <199508170157.VAA25656@wilma.cs.utk.edu>
From: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>
To: perry@piermont.com
cc: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>, drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: "Reply-To" 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 16 Aug 1995 21:22:38 EDT."
             <199508170122.VAA00519@frankenstein.piermont.com> 
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 21:57:43 -0400
Sender: moore@CS.UTK.EDU

> 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?

There is no "reply to sender" function defined in 822.
I think there's already general agreement as to how
the default "reply" works.  What we're talking about is
how to redirect "reply to sender" without using Reply-To
and thereby redirecting the default "reply" command.

The Authorized-by header was suggested so we wouldn't
lose the ability to say "this message was sent on behalf of ..."
while redirecting the "reply to sender" command at the same time.

> 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. 

Yes, we're talking about a very subtle change here. 

Keith