Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id QAA17716; Fri, 25 Aug 1995 16:32:16 -0400 X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Fri, 25 Aug 1995 16:32:15 EDT Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU Received: from Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id QAA17709; Fri, 25 Aug 1995 16:32:12 -0400 Received: from localhost by Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (NX5.67e/UW-NDC Revision: 2.27.MRC ) id AA15671; Fri, 25 Aug 95 13:32:06 -0700 Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 13:18:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Mark Crispin Sender: Mark Crispin Subject: re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue To: Keith Moore Cc: drums@CS.UTK.EDU, moore@CS.UTK.EDU In-Reply-To: <199508251919.PAA13062@wilma.cs.utk.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Fri, 25 Aug 1995 15:19:25 -0400, Keith Moore wrote: > My estimate of what we have rough concensus on is as follows: > > [ ] reply-to is primarily intended to allow the original > author of the message to state his preference as to where > replies to this message should be sent Agree, if modified as follows: [ ] reply-to allows the original author of the message to state his preference as to where replies to this message should be sent. If a Reply-To address is present, the From address should NOT be sent a reply. Delete "primarily intended" (which is the cause of the flaming), and emphasize that From is not used in reply in this case. I would argue for the following, which I would call "version 2": [ ] reply-to in a message indicates where replies to this message should be sent. If a Reply-To address is present, the From address should NOT be sent a reply. > [ ] reply-to MAY be added by a mailing list to encourage readers to > reply to the list and/or the orignal author. Follows from version 2. > [ ] reply-to MAY be used by a sender to encourage replies to go to > her primary mailbox, though it's probably better to use From > for this purpose if the sender's UA supports doing so. Follows from either of the above. > [ ] while a UA SHOULD respect reply-to when generating replies, > in practice, recipients can reply to anyone they want to. Better: [ ] a UA SHOULD use reply-to when generating replies, and SHOULD NOT use From. A UA MAY also use To and cc when generating replies, but this SHOULD NOT be the default behavior. In practice, recipients can reply to anyone they want to. > [ ] whether or not lists should be discouraged from munging reply-to I dislike this practice, but I don't think it's possible to legislate on this issue. > [ ] whether reply-to is intended to allow the original author > of a message to state his preference as to where replies > to HIM should be sent (note contrast from above) Follows from the above. I think that people are too hung up on intent. I don't believe that it is possible that we can legislate intent. We have too damn many UAs and MTAs which forbid changing From out of a misguided sense of "security" to outlaw the practice of using Reply-To for the "my real address" function, and yet we also have a common use of Reply-To in mailing lists (and this practice, while distasteful, *is* better than changing the From). I think this is the important point, from which everything else follows: [ ] a UA SHOULD use reply-to when generating replies, and SHOULD NOT use From. A UA MAY also use To and cc when generating replies, but this SHOULD NOT be the default behavior. In practice, recipients can reply to anyone they want to.