Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id LAA28267; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 11:46:34 -0400 X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 11:46:32 EDT Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU Received: from po4.andrew.cmu.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id LAA28244; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 11:46:26 -0400 Received: (from postman@localhost) by po4.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA01758 for drums@cs.utk.edu; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 11:46:18 -0400 Received: via switchmail; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 11:46:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nifty.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 11:45:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: via niftymail; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 11:45:18 -0400 (EDT) Sender: Chris Newman Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 11:45:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Chris Newman Subject: Re: summing up: the meaning of the reply-to header To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <811179917.22005.0@nifty.andrew.cmu.edu> I don't believe this group can "fix" reply-to and stay within it's charter. Therefore we have only two options: 1) Document the status quo use of reply-to in detail, but don't change it. (Mark Crispin's proposal) 2) Spawn a new working group chartered to address the issue of reply functionality in Internet email and empowered to add new headers pertaining to reply functionality and redefine or deprecate reply-to. If this group finishes before DRUMS, then DRUMS would have the option of including its results in the DRUMS document in place of documenting the status quo. I believe the debate on this list reflects enough frustration with the status quo to merit attempting option 2. ----- Chris Newman , http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~nifty/ The worst thing about censorship is: [censored]