Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <199508291735.NAA00716@info.cren.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 13:38:36 +0100
To: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>, ietf-drums <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>
From: conklin@info.cren.net (Jim Conklin)
Subject: Re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue

  I think that Jacob's suggestion may be a workable compromise, since it
leaves the present situation usable but builds toward a long-term solution
that would be desirable.  It also encompases the idea behind the
"Wide-Reply-To" header.

Jim

At  4:48 PM 8/28/95 +0200, Jacob Palme wrote:
>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.