Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id AAA09054; Thu, 17 Aug 1995 00:35:45 -0400 X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Thu, 17 Aug 1995 00:35:44 EDT Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU Received: from munnari.oz.au by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id AAA08898; Thu, 17 Aug 1995 00:33:40 -0400 Received: from mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU by munnari.oz.au with SMTP (5.83--+1.3.1+0.50) id AA20570; Thu, 17 Aug 1995 14:25:18 +1000 (from kre@munnari.OZ.AU) To: Mark Crispin Cc: drums@CS.UTK.EDU Reply-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: "Reply-To" In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 16 Aug 1995 20:24:04 MST." Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 14:22:38 +1000 Message-Id: <10777.808633358@munnari.OZ.AU> From: Robert Elz Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 20:24:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Mark Crispin Message-ID: Many, if not the majority of, mailers have two reply functions. Many certainly, the majority perhaps, all of them, certainly not - if all mailers acted the same way here, discussing Reply-To would never have been on the list of items, as it would not be a problem - we'd all be agreeing on its meaning. Consequently ... 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 Is simply not so, the problem is that there is no status quo here, not all mailers act the same way. This causes confusion and doubt, and it is exactly within the charter of this group to clear up this doubt, by making the choice, one way or the other. When, if ever, the mailers (MUA's) that currently have selected the other choice of interpretations of Reply-To:, that is, the one that the group does not select to bless, will be changed is an entirely different question, and that is not relevant to this group. It is however clear that there is an ambiguity here, and that needs to be removed. kre