Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id NAA28912; Sun, 27 Aug 1995 13:37:37 -0400 X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Sun, 27 Aug 1995 13:37:36 EDT Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU Received: from po7.andrew.cmu.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id NAA28905; Sun, 27 Aug 1995 13:37:28 -0400 Received: (from postman@localhost) by po7.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA10407 for drums@CS.UTK.EDU; Sun, 27 Aug 1995 13:37:19 -0400 Received: via switchmail; Sun, 27 Aug 1995 13:37:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nifty.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 27 Aug 1995 13:36:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: via niftymail; Sun, 27 Aug 1995 13:36:33 -0400 (EDT) Sender: Chris Newman Date: Sun, 27 Aug 1995 13:36:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Chris Newman Subject: Re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU In-Reply-To: <25082619480682@wigate.nic.wisc.edu> References: <25082619480682@wigate.nic.wisc.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <809544993.26189.0@nifty.andrew.cmu.edu> If we believe there are no problems with Reply-To now, and want to just clarify RFC 822 section 4.4.3 & 4.4.4, then I believe that Keith's item list (and Mark's clarifications) do a good job. I believe there is a problem with those sections of RFC 822. The MUA needs enough information to express some of the more common "user reply intents". The problem is that RFC 822's Reply-To/From/To/CC don't provide enough precise information. There are two changes I believe are necessary: 1) That some way be added to distinguish whether "Reply-To" refers to a personal reply address or a group/list reply address. 2) If the Reply-To address refers to a group/list reply address, then the RFC 822 requirement that Reply-To always supercedes From should be loosened. ----- Chris Newman , http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~nifty/ The worst thing about censorship is: [censored]