Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <199509150327.XAA22082@wilma.cs.utk.edu>
From: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>
To: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
cc: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>, ietf-drums <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>
Subject: Re: Another header-munging example 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 15 Sep 1995 04:06:13 +0200."
             <Pine.SUN.3.91.950915034922.24926H-100000@ester.dsv.su.se> 
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 23:27:32 -0400
Sender: moore@CS.UTK.EDU

> In the case of a new more precise definition of "Reply-To" you
> assume that implementors will eventually conform to the new
> definition. In the case of the two new headers to replace
> it, you assume that implementors will not eventually conform
> and this that the problem will be even worse.

User agents already honor Reply-to to some degree in that if
someone types "reply", the reply-to address will almost certainly
be included in the recipient list.  They differ as to whether
other addresses will be included by default.  Often, this is
configurable on a per-user basis, so the user has the option
of having reply-to work as we define it.

If we define a new reply-to header then user agents will have
to add support for it, and this support won't be in place
in general for some number of years.

Do people really think that Reply-to is so broken that it needs
to be scrapped in favor of a new header? 

Keith