Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id MAA06343; Sat, 26 Aug 1995 12:30:37 -0400
X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Sat, 26 Aug 1995 12:30:36 EDT
Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from leibniz.math.psu.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id MAA06331; Sat, 26 Aug 1995 12:30:34 -0400
Received: from augusta.math.psu.edu (barr@augusta.math.psu.edu [146.186.132.2]) by leibniz.math.psu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id MAA21798 for <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>; Sat, 26 Aug 1995 12:30:31 -0400
Received: from localhost (barr@localhost) by augusta.math.psu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id MAA00529 for <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>; Sat, 26 Aug 1995 12:30:30 -0400
Message-Id: <199508261630.MAA00529@augusta.math.psu.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.2 7/18/95
To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 25 Aug 1995 15:47:07 PDT."
             <MailManager.809390827.15625.mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> 
References: <MailManager.809390827.15625.mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> 
X-Face: $+9-wYg.[->94HJ{go[7Q]E!K&hUg7ZhLyCMyq_FU*ca0GazE>^/2BKLcK0bP-'%;Nn?M<m
 c~dP_j^A?M5Jw{+a7vcMu|M-mq"V4AzKq?mPMMNP\;f8J0n\-L]ODU)YMP;-pF>+am,jlSP>1K$iz@
 %'v'FEW{@](U&Ed/}>ju3Ctlr!XwJ27Q)7h2a%"`sz;j:/3EC[mXi@*X@HE1]'ddq$ZX"ePsMyTkeg
 >zdML.SV<t=R>vX1W`adGIUD
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 1995 12:30:29 -0400
From: Dave Barr <barr@math.psu.edu>

In message <MailManager.809390827.15625.mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>, M
ark Crispin writes:
>On Fri, 25 Aug 1995 18:36:54 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>> So on this particular issue, I want people to very clearly state
>> whether Reply-to expresses the author's preference about (pick one):
>>
>> [ ] where replies to the message should be sent
>>
>> [ ] where replies to the *author* should be sent
>
>Both of the above, interpretation determined by the recipient in his selection
>of "reply" or "reply all".

This is probably the lesser of all evils.  I disagree totally with
the notion that UA's should should always use Reply-To: over From:.
In the case of mailing-list-added Reply-To:'s you destroy the ability
for the user to reply personally.  I still think this above method has
its evils because in such cases the user needs to use the unintuitive
"reply all" feature to send a personal reply! (after deleting the
list address from the To:/Cc:)

I think that some sort of discouragement should be placed in the
paragraph about Reply-To's being added by lists.  At least there should
be some explanations of the dangers/caveats of doing so.

--Dave