Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 20:24:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Crispin <MRC@Panda.COM>
Sender: Mark Crispin <mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM>
Subject: Re: "Reply-To" 
To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU
In-Reply-To: <199508170244.WAA25893@wilma.cs.utk.edu>
Message-Id: <MailManager.808629844.4753.mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

Brief injection of reality time.  <<Aww, that nasty spoil-sport MRC!!>>

I am quite alarmed by the proposals to introduce new headers, and by the tone
in the positions taken by certain individuals in the burst of messages in the
past few days.

Many, if not the majority of, mailers have two reply functions.

One function does the following:
	MESSAGE *make_reply (MESSAGE *source)
	{
	  MESSAGE *reply = new_message ();
	  reply->to = source->reply_to ? source->reply_to : source->from;
	  reply->subject = concat ("Re: ",source->subject);
	  reply->in_reply_to = source->message_id;
	  return reply;
	}
This function is commonly, although inaccurately, called "reply to sender" or
sometimes just "reply".

The other function does the following:
	MESSAGE *make_reply_all (MESSAGE *source);
	{
	  MESSAGE *reply = make_reply (source);
	  reply->cc = concat_addr (source->to,source->cc);
	  return reply;
	}
This function is commonly called "reply to all".

This is very basic, and very commonly deployed.  No amount of wishing is going
to make this go away.

It is also the case that many MUAs and MTAs, and a great many sites, forbid
the user from altering the contents of the From: header in his outgoing mail,
in a misguided belief that this "adds security".  The consequence of this is
that many email users find themselves obliged to configure their MUAs so that
a constant Reply-To: header is written on *all* of their outgoing mail.

Any definitions arrived at by this group have to keep the above facts firmly
in mind, along with the very great likelihood that it will not be possible to
change any of these facts.  It would, therefore, be exceptionally foolish for
a standard to be issued that introduces incompatible changes that will be
ignored.l

Nor did I see, at the time this WG was formed, any sentiment on the part of
the IESG that supports such an alteration of fundamental functionality, NO
MATTER HOW DESIRABLE IT MAY OTHERWISE BE.  Certainly, the addition of a new
header for a portion of contemporary reply-type functionality is such an
alteration.

If the esteemed members of this working group are unable or unwilling to
accept the basic principles that (1) this is the status quo among mailer
reading programs in the Internet and (2) you are not going to succeed in
changing this, then there is no reason for me to participate any further in
the discussions of this working group.  I wish to put my efforts into projects
that have some hope of being useful.

I may, however, protest to the IESG that this working group has exceeded its
charter, which emphatically does *not* include any changes to the status quo.

Thank you for listening.  I now return you to your regularly scheduled
flaming.

-- Mark --

DoD #0105, R90/6 pilot  FAX: (206) 842-0758  ICBM: N 47.36'24" W 122.34'08"
TOPS-20: A Great Improvement Over Its Successors