Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <25082621042177@wigate.nic.wisc.edu>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 95 21:04 CDT
From: "Eric Norman (MACC)" <EJNORMAN@macc.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue
To: moore@CS.UTK.EDU
CC: drums@CS.UTK.EDU

> If this is the case, we're not defining a "protocol" with these headers 
> so much as a "language" -- a standardized way for the sender to communicate 
> such things to the recipient.  So we need to define these headers according 
> to what they *mean* as opposed to how user agents act upon them.

Absolutely right.  Let's pay attention to the information being provided
to UAs, not what they're supposed to do with that information.  We will
come up with recommendations and examples of reasonable and appropriate
things to do with such information, but the information content is
what's important.

> 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
> 
>     (thus for the recipient to honor the author's wishes, the reply
>     the addresses in the reply-to header rather than to any of the 
>     other combinations)

Yes.  I think that's just what RFC822 intends.
 
> [ ] where replies to the *author* should be sent
> 
>     (thus a reply might reasonably be sent to the
>     reply-to address + addresses from the to and cc headers,
>     without violating the author's intent)

No.  The author provides the address that she wishes to be known by
in the From: header.  If she wants to emphasize that "normal" replies
should go just to her, I reckon she could also include a Reply-To: with
the same address.

Eric Norman  <ejnorman@macc.wisc.edu>