Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id JAA01429; Fri, 18 Aug 1995 09:27:18 -0400 X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Fri, 18 Aug 1995 09:27:17 EDT Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU Received: from nameserver.utcc.utk.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id JAA01421; Fri, 18 Aug 1995 09:27:14 -0400 Received: from ester.dsv.su.se by nameserver.utcc.utk.edu with SMTP (5.61++/2.8s-UTK.UTCC) id AA04789; Fri, 18 Aug 95 09:25:14 -0400 X400-Received: by /PRMD=SUNET/ADMD=_/C=SE/; Relayed; 18 Aug 95 15:11:02+0200 Date: 18 Aug 95 15:11:02+0200 From: "Jacob Palme DSV-SU/KTH" Message-Id: <1094155*jpalme@su-kom.dsv.su.se> References: <199508172348.TAA04959@CS.UTK.EDU> To: ietf-drums Cc: acob Palme DSV Subject: Re: 'Reply-To' Roger Fajman wrote: > 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. Users need not see this header normally. The user just chooses to use the "personal reply" or "reply all" command, and then one or the other of the two "Reply-To" recommendations is used. The user should of course always be allowed to set the recipient addresses explicitly, but that is for advanced users, normal users need something simpler.