Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <199508170244.WAA25893@wilma.cs.utk.edu>
From: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>
To: Dave Barr <barr@math.psu.edu>
cc: drums@CS.UTK.EDU, moore@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: "Reply-To" 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 16 Aug 1995 19:34:57 EDT."
             <199508162334.TAA06129@augusta.math.psu.edu> 
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 22:43:57 -0400
Sender: moore@CS.UTK.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.

This may be true.  I think this is counter to the original intent of
Reply-To (to state the sender's preference) but I also think I'd
rather say that list managers should leave the sender's Reply-To
header if there's already one there, than to either outlaw this
behavior or to make a new header for this purpose.

> 	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.

I've seen it a fair amount, myself.

> 	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.

I have a hard time saying lists should "never" do these things,
because there are nearly always some cases where it's reasonable for a
list to do exactly that.  For instance, a digest is going to add its
own From address.  So would a list that wanted to preserve anonymyity
of its members.  I've found it very useful on one or two lists to
rename To and CC to X-Original-To and X-Original-CC to prevent people
from replying to the whole list -- because the lists were for
announcements only.  But these are exceptional cases.

> 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)

In general, I think recipients should be allowed to respond to
whomever they want; the question is more toward what the default user
agent behavior should be when replying to a message that contains a
reply-to header, and whether this is different for "reply to everyone"
and "reply to sender".

Or maybe we should be trying to specify the *meaning* of the header:
when you add a reply-to header to a message, what are you really
asking for?

Does it mean "if you reply, please do so to this set of recipients",
or does it instead mean "if you reply, please use *this* address in
place of my From address".  Or something else?

Keith