Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <199508272241.SAA16951@wilma.cs.utk.edu>
From: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>
To: Chris Newman <chrisn+@cmu.edu>
cc: drums@CS.UTK.EDU, moore@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 27 Aug 1995 13:36:33 EDT."
             <809544993.26189.0@nifty.andrew.cmu.edu> 
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 1995 18:41:15 -0400
Sender: moore@CS.UTK.EDU

> 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.

Hmmm.  If it's useful to allow the sender to specify both
a personal reply address and a group/list reply address, I don't
see why this can't be accomplished using From and Reply-to, 
respectively.

If I understand your concern, the problem only occurs
when a list adds a Reply-To header that points to the list.
The recipient's UA might like to offer a "reply to author"
option, but it's not clear whether the From or the Reply-to
address should be used.  At present, sometimes Reply-to
points to the sender's preferred mailbox; other times it 
is added by a list and points to the list.

Is this a reasonable Description of the Symptom?

This is why I would like to deprecate or discourage
the practice of a sender using Reply-to to point to 
his preferred mailbox.  If we encourage him to use
From instead, then "reply to author" can always go to
the From 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.

If we get away from defining UA behavior, this becomes less of
a problem. 

Keith