Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
To: Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE>
Cc: drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: Getting back on track 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 24 Aug 1995 12:28:24 +0200."
             <199508241103.HAA06519@CS.UTK.EDU> 
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 23:13:13 +1000
Message-Id: <12517.809269993@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>

    Date:        Thu, 24 Aug 1995 12:28:24 +0200
    From:        Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE>
    Message-ID:  <199508241103.HAA06519@CS.UTK.EDU>

    I'm afraid this procedure sounds tedious and bureaucratic
    to me.

I think I agree with this.  It also ignored the "no voting"
creed of the IETF.   But I am not sure what the solution is.


    Users  have been enjoying this  usage of the
    Reply-To:  field for  9 years.

Which particular usage is this?

    if  you  invalidate the  current Reply-To: usage by
    mailing lists

if your concern is just this, then I would rest easy, as
I doubt any outlawing will be done on this issue.  The most
that would be likely to happen would be a recommendation that
mailing lists not fiddle this header, with an explanation.  What
needs to be done to Reply-To is to indicate just what it is
supposed to mean when it is present, whoever puts it there.


Finally, I am not unduly worried about the real end users
here, most of them care nothing about any of these details,
and would never recognise a Reply-To or Resent header or
whatever if they fell over one.  Those who do understand
can also understand the issues.


kre