Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <199508270128.VAA04351@CS.UTK.EDU>
Date:        Sun, 27 Aug 1995 02:59:31 +0200
From: Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE>
Subject:     Re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue
To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU

I think we're missing an important point in this discussion about whether
"Reply-To:" is for public or private replies. While I appreciate that the
current Reply-To:  specs in RFC822 may  be frustrating and not  provide a
clear  answer to  a number  of questions  that developers  and users  are
asking themselves, the fact is that, in 1982, mailing lists were still in
their  infancy (I  won't go  so far  as to  say that  they didn't  exist,
because they did,  but they weren't used  to the same extent  as they are
nowadays  - they  were  more  like glorified  address  book aliases  that
probably got added  to the MTA because,  uh, it was easier  than adding a
global address  book feature to  the UA and,  uh, having to  convince all
users  to use  the same  UA :-)  ). If  RFC822 had  meant to  give clear,
unambiguous answers on  the behaviour of mailing lists,  there would have
been a section about mailing lists stating how they should behave, and we
wouldn't be  having this  discussion. So  it doesn't  make much  sense to
argue whether  RFC822 originally intended  for "Reply-To:" to apply  to a
*private* reply to  the author, or to a public  reply through a potential
mailing list. RFC822 simply failed to consider the possibility, hence the
lack of  "Followup-To:" (or equivalent).  If you absolutely have  to know
what  RFC822 originally  intended,  ask  the authors!  My  guess is  that
they'll confirm that they hadn't thought  of that problem. And even if we
decided that RFC822  did after all intend to give  the field a particular
meaning, to  the exclusion of the  other, we're stuck with  the fact that
it's currently used for both things and  we don't have any other field we
could use for the deprecated meaning.

  Eric