Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id LAA03134; Thu, 17 Aug 1995 11:49:16 -0400
X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Thu, 17 Aug 1995 11:49:14 EDT
Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id LAA03100; Thu, 17 Aug 1995 11:49:10 -0400
Message-Id: <199508171549.LAA03100@CS.UTK.EDU>
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 7179; Thu, 17 Aug 95 17:44:29 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2b/1.8b) with RFC822 id 9099; Thu, 17 Aug 1995 17:44:28 +0200
Date:        Thu, 17 Aug 1995 17:28:04 +0200
From: Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE>
Subject:     Re: "Reply-To"
To: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
cc: ietf-drums <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>
In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 17 Aug 1995 11:20:04 +0200 (MET DST) from Jacob
             Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>

On   Thu,  17   Aug   1995   11:20:04  +0200   (MET   DST)  Jacob   Palme
<jpalme@dsv.su.se> said:

>Do I  understand you  to say  that the practice  of using  "Reply-To" to
>redirect discussion to the mailing list  instead of the author is (a) in
>common usage (b) works well?

Yes, and yes. Since 1986, if I might add.

>I.e. we  hade the system  such that replies by  default are sent  to the
>"Reply-To" address, unless the writer of the reply did something special
>to send the reply somewhere else.

Jacob, this is the way most mail  programs work, whether you or I like it
or not. Maybe this was a disaster  for your users, but there are millions
of users  who use mailing lists  this way and seem  perfectly happy about
it.

  Eric