Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <199508172348.TAA04959@CS.UTK.EDU>
To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU
From: "Roger Fajman" <RAF@CU.NIH.GOV>
Date:     Thu, 17 Aug 1995  19:48:03 EDT
Subject:  Re:  'Reply-To'

The person who knows best where a reply to a message should go is the
person who is sending that reply, not the sender of the original
message.  The Reply-to header should be considered a suggestion from
the sender about where replies should most likely go, but the person
replying is free to ignore the suggestion.

While the IETF does not normally standardize user interfaces, I think
we should make a strong recommendation to implementors of user agents
that, if there is more than one place where a reply might be sent, the
user agent should always ask the user to specify in some way (e.g.,
select from a menu) exactly where the reply should be sent.  This
method should work well with just about any current practice for
Reply-to.  We have a user agent that we built this way and it is rare
for replies to be misdirected.  It works fine no matter how a mailing
list sets Reply-to.

I define "more than one place where a reply might be sent" to mean that
more than one address other than that of the person replying appears in
the To, cc, From, Sender, and Reply-to headers (or the Resent- versions
of those).  A user agent should have a list of synonyms for its user's
address, since its not unusual for there to be multiple addresses that
end up at the same mailbox.  Of course, the user should always have the
opportunity to add other addresses for the reply, in addition to, or
instead of, those that appear in the headers of the message being
replied to.

With regard to Reply-to and mailing lists, I think it is the list
owner's perogative to have the Reply-to point at the list, at the
sender, or to leave it alone.  That means that I belong to the list
server as user agent faction.  I run most of my lists with the Reply-to
pointing at the list (but left alone if specified by the sender).
Given the way that many user agents work today and the tendency of
users to accept defaults without thinking, I think that it would
severely impact the discussion on the lists to do it otherwise.  Of
course, for announcement lists, the Reply-to should not point at the
list.

I also think that it's far too late to introduce a wide reply-to
header.  Most users wouldn't understand or remember the difference
anyway.  I also agree that introducing such a header is out of scope
for the DRUMS WG.

Roger Fajman