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 "Thu, 17 Aug 1995 11:20:04 +0200."
             <Pine.SUN.3.91.950817111400.27446H-100000@ester> 
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 20:44:07 +1000
Message-Id: <10928.808656247@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>

    Date:        Thu, 17 Aug 1995 11:20:04 +0200 (MET DST)
    From:        Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
    Message-ID:  <Pine.SUN.3.91.950817111400.27446H-100000@ester>


    Would you really like e-mail systems to be designed so that the
    address in the "Reply-To" field is the default recipient set
    by the mail client, both when the user gives the "personal reply"
    or "reply all" command?

No, not a lot - but I think there should be 3 commands, not two.
"reply" and "personal reply" would both send the reply back to
the sender, "reply all" would take "all" quite seriously, and
stick in all the addresses it could locate.

Normally I'd just use reply, and for most messages that would
send to the sender, and anyone (other than me) listed in the
recipient headers (I config my MUA not to send me copies).
However, if the sender expressly says (via Reply-To) that he
prefers that replies go just to him, and not to other
recipients, then that's what I would normally do, unless I
had some reason for overriding his wishes.

kre

ps: I am trying very hard to decypher Harald's message on
what he thinks we have consensus on, Harald, could you send
that again, using other words?  In particular, don't describe
what "replying" should mean, but what the "reply-to" header
should indicate to the recipient.