Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <199509150001.UAA21752@wilma.cs.utk.edu>
To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: summing up: the meaning of the reply-to header
cc: moore@CS.UTK.EDU
From: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 20:01:39 -0400
Sender: moore@CS.UTK.EDU

(from the chair)

Okay, I just looked back over the past several weeks of messages.
Here's what I've decided:

1. There is rough concensus that the Reply-To header specifies 
where replies to the *message* should go, as opposed to replies 
to just the author.  

In particular, I can find only limited support for the idea 
that Reply-To overrides only the address(es) in the From header.
So there's a lack of concensus on this sub-issue.

2. There is rough concensus that the recipient can, in principle,
reply to anyone she wants to, and that user agents can provide
functions to make it easy for her do so.

3. There is rough concensus that the standards should primarily
specify the meanings of the header fields, rather than attempt
to dictate behavior of user agents in response to those fields.

4. There is no concensus for the idea that lists should be prohibited
from adding Reply-To.  Some would like to discourage this behavior;
others don't think we can do anything about it.

5. There is a near-concensus that existing headers are not sufficient
to accomodate mailing lists.  However, new headers to support mailing 
lists are generally not within the scope of this group.  

(However, the Chair is willing to consider proposals to deprecate 
Resent-* and replace it with a similar but better defined mechanism 
using new field names.  If these new fields were useful for mailing 
lists, the Chair would still consider them within the scope of this 
group.  Otherwise, interested parties are invited to develop proposals 
for new headers for mailing lists outside of the DRUMS group.)

Barring any new *information* which could have a bearing on the
discussion, these issues are now closed.

Keith Moore