Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <199508170920.LAA02940@dale.uninett.no>
From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
To: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>
cc: Mark Crispin <MRC@panda.com.utk.edu>, drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: "Reply-To"
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 17 Aug 1995 00:34:47 EDT." <199508170434.AAA01079@thud.cs.utk.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 11:20:15 +0200
Sender: hta@dale.uninett.no

Keith,
I think we have more or less a consensus (rough, as usual!) that:

- The function described as "replying" in RFC 822 is "reply to sender",
  or "reply as the sender directed", and should stay as it is, including
  reply-to.

- The function "reply to all" is NOT described in RFC 822. We need to des=
cribe
  the properties this function should have, and these properties should
  fit the "terrain" as closely as possible.
  A new document (outside DRUMS!) can then make suggestions about modifyi=
ng
  this function, with extensions like wide-reply-to or something else.

IMHO, the group does not have a mandate to describe mailing list behaviou=
r
in any great detail; trying to outlaw existing practice on mailing lists =
is =

going to make us remember the "dot in unquoted name" discussion as a quie=
t,
peaceful and productive time. (even though I *do* agree that some practic=
es =

deserve outlawing, my personal hitlist doesn't belong here.)

                Harald A