From: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@candle.brasslantern.com>
Message-Id: <970416232242.ZM22740@candle.brasslantern.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 23:22:42 -0700
In-Reply-To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
        "Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To" (Apr 16, 10:09pm)
References: <199704170209.WAA04273@ig.cs.utk.edu>
Reply-To: schaefer@nbn.com
To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Subject: Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To
Cc: drums@cs.utk.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Apr 16, 10:09pm, Keith Moore wrote:
} Subject: Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To
}
} > Perhaps both issues could be addressed this way:
} > 
} >     When a message is a reply to another message, the mailboxes of
} >     the authors of the original message (the mailboxes in the
} >     "Reply-To:" or "From:" fields, chosen as indicated in section
} >     3.6.2) MAY appear in the "To:" field of the reply, since that
} >     would normally be the primary recipient.  In the absence of
} >     instructions to the contrary, a user agent SHOULD offer to use
} >     the authors' mailboxes when generating a reply.
} 
} This implies that the "Reply-to" field somehow contains the addresses
} of the authors, and that "Reply-to" replaces "From" when constructing
} replies.  The former simply isn't true

The text that's already in the draft in 3.6.3 already implies that; I
didn't alter that part.  The wording in 3.6.2 indicates that Reply-To:
does not refer to "the author(s) of the message, but rather" some other
mailbox(es); so I guess that's a conflict between those sections.

Perhaps in 3.6.3, drop the phrase "the mailboxes of the authors" and take
the parens off "the mailboxes in the ... fields".

} and I don't think there's
} anything close to consensus on the latter.

I didn't realize that was at issue.  Is there really still disagreement
over the statement in 3.6.2 about where replies should (not) go in the
presence of Reply-To?  I thought that was grandfathered in from 822.

} > A somewhat related question, which probably arises from history of which
} > I'm ignorant:  Why does 3.6.2 say that Reply-To: should not be used when
} > it is identical to From:?  If they're identical, what difference does it
} > make which of them is used?
} 
} I think 3.6.2 is trying to say that there's little point in a *sender*
} supplying a Reply-To field which is identical to the From field.  

Ah.  That makes more sense.  Perhaps that sentence should be moved to
appear before the sentence that begins ``When the "Reply-To:" field is
present ...''

(3.6.2 -- move one sentence, reorder clauses of another to make a "SHOULD
NOT x, but rather y" into the equivalent (?) "SHOULD y, rather than x".)

    The originator also provides the information required to reply
    to a message.  The "Reply-To:" field SHOULD NOT be used if it is
    identical to the "From:" field.  When "Reply-To:" is present, it
    indicates that replies SHOULD go to the mailbox(es) specified in
    the "Reply-To:" field, rather than back to the author(s) of the
    message.  In the absence of the "Reply-To:" field, replies SHOULD
    be sent to the mailbox(es) specified in the "From:" field.  In
    all cases, the "From:" field SHOULD NOT contain any mailbox which
    does not belong to the author(s) of the message.  See also
    section 3.6.3 for information on forming the destination
    addresses for a reply.

(3.6.3 -- remove reference to "the mailboxes of the authors", add cross
reference back to 3.6.2.)

    When a message is a reply to another message, the mailboxes in
    the "From:" or "Reply-To:" fields of the original message (see
    section 3.6.2) MAY appear in the "To:" field of the reply, since
    that would normally be the primary recipient.  If a reply is sent
    to a message that has destination fields ... [unchanged to end].

Is that better?

-- 
Bart Schaefer                             Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts            http://www.nbn.com/people/lantern