Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id KAA23480; Mon, 28 Aug 1995 10:49:03 -0400 X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Mon, 28 Aug 1995 10:48:56 EDT Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU Received: from vall.dsv.su.se by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id KAA23448; Mon, 28 Aug 1995 10:48:52 -0400 Received: from ester.dsv.su.se (ester.dsv.su.se [130.237.161.10]) by vall.dsv.su.se (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA03938 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 1995 16:48:39 +0200 Received: by ester.dsv.su.se (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA28664; Mon, 28 Aug 95 16:48:38 +0200 Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 16:48:37 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jacob Palme X-Sender: jpalme@ester To: ietf-drums Subject: Re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII The cause of the problem is that the present "Reply-To" header is widely used in two different ways. Allowing both will just preserve the ambiguity problem, choosing one will make all implementations bsed on the other choice unhappy. I can only see one solution. Invent two new header-fields "Personal-Reply-To" and "Group-Reply-To". Say that the old field "Reply-To" is kept but that its use is depreciated in favor of the two new fields. If a message has both the old and one or both of the new fields, the old field should be disregarded. After 5 or 10 years, when all implementors have changed to the new implementation, the old ambiguous "Reply-To" can be eliminated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jacob Palme (Stockholm University and KTH) for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme