Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id LAA27342; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 11:38:30 -0400 X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 11:38:24 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 LAA27313; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 11:38:10 -0400 Received: from ester.dsv.su.se.noname (ester.dsv.su.se [130.237.161.10]) by vall.dsv.su.se (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA05620; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 17:38:05 +0200 Received: by ester.dsv.su.se.noname (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA27691; Fri, 15 Sep 95 17:38:03 +0200 Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 17:38:03 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jacob Palme To: Keith Moore Cc: Keith Moore , Eric Thomas , ietf-drums Subject: Re: Another header-munging example In-Reply-To: <199509150316.XAA22055@wilma.cs.utk.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 14 Sep 1995, Keith Moore wrote: > Adding new functionality is outside of our charter. (I also > believe we've already had a ruling from our AD stating that > "the group does not have a mandate to describe mailing list > behaviour in any great detail...".) > > My opinion is that we can clarify the language in 822 that > refers to mailing lists (or "text message teleconferencing"), > but not to add new functionality specifically to support > mailing lists. (1) The "Reply-To" controversy is not about adding new functionality. The different interpretations of "Reply-To" are both in wide usage today. (2) There is no possible way of "clarifying the language", since there are different incompatible uses in wide usage. Unless your "clarification" is some obscure statement which allows both alternatives, but that is excatly what one should *not* do when making standards. (3) This is not only about mailing lists. It relates to all messages which have more than one recipient. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jacob Palme (Stockholm University and KTH) for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme