Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 11:33:07 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
To: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>
Cc: ietf-drums <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>, moore@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: "Reply-To" 
In-Reply-To: <199508161751.NAA24405@wilma.cs.utk.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950817113032.27446K-100000@ester>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 16 Aug 1995, Keith Moore wrote:

> I don't think we can afford to give the sender so many options.
> A reply-to header that expresses the sender's wishes is sufficient
> in 95% of the cases.  The other 5% of the cases will need half a
> dozen different headers to satisfy them -- which won't work anyway
> because they're not widely used.  Things get even worse if we try
> to handle the cases where the list manager also wants to specify 
> where replies go.  

I agree. Let us define "Reply-To" to handle the 95 % cases.
The problem is that all do not seem to agree on which this
95 % cases are. Both you and I seem to be of the opinion that
"Reply-To" is not meant to be used for rerouting of messages
to the distribution list in which the replied-to message was
sent. However, other people seem to be of the opinion that
this is exactly what "Reply-To" is meant to be used for!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme