Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
To: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
Cc: ietf-drums <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>
Reply-To: ietf-drums <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>
Subject: Re: "Reply-To" 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 16 Aug 1995 18:13:21 +0200."
             <Pine.SUN.3.91.950816174740.21591A-100000@ester> 
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 13:54:50 +1000
Message-Id: <10762.808631690@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>

    Date:        Wed, 16 Aug 1995 18:13:21 +0200 (MET DST)
    From:        Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
    Message-ID:  <Pine.SUN.3.91.950816174740.21591A-100000@ester>

    Another use of this heading field is when you send a message to
    a group, which you are yourself a member of. In such cases you
    may wish to indicate that group replies go only to the list,
    and not as personal mail directly to yourself. The "Reply-To"
    field is obviously not suitable in this case, since you do not
    want to redirect personal replies, only group replies.

I'm afraid I don't understand this.   In the previous message I
just sent, and this one, I have done exactly that.   If you
want to send me a personal reply, my address is there in the
From: line for you to use - such a personal reply would not
however really be a reply to this message - as this message
is in an open forum, and replies should be seen there.  It
would really be a new, independant, message, perhaps inspired
by this one - really no different than if you set out with
a blank page and decided to compose a message to me.

Reply-To: is entirely appropriate for this use - the idea is
that the standard default reply go to the list, and the list
only (as I have used it above) - I will get a copy from there,
and don't need another sent to me (regardless of whether my
mailer filters duplicates, these days in Aust we pay for
traffic received, I really need only one copy).   I should
have remembered this in the first message I sent on this topic,
I could have probably saved some traffic...

Then again, possibly not, as, as we have seen, at the minute
there are widely different interpretations of what Reply-To:
actualy means, and I would guess that many mailer's response
to the Reply-To: I added may not be what I intended.   This
is what we are supposed to be fixing (one of the things anyway).

I see actually just two rational clarifications, Jacob's
original, where Reply-To: is simply an override of From: and
addresses from the To: and Cc: lists can be added at the
recipient's discretion (the sender is giving no guidance on
this issue, and has no currently defined way to do so), and
my suggestion to instead have Reply-To: be interpreted as
indicating the inclusive list of where the sender suggests
that replies should be directed.

If there are any other choices, can we have them explicitly
spelled out please?

If not, then let's proceed to deciding which of those is
to be preferred and why, and get this item off the agenda.

kre