Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id OAA08440; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 14:25:57 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.7); Thu, 17 Apr 1997 14:24:47 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id OAA08270; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 14:24:45 -0400 Received: from moon.nbn.com (moon.nbn.com [199.4.65.1]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id OAA08258; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 14:24:39 -0400 Received: from candle.brasslantern.com (schaefer@zagzig.zanshin.com [206.155.48.241]) by moon.nbn.com (8.8.2/8.8.2/MOON) with ESMTP id LAA28288; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 11:24:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) id LAA24444; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 11:24:25 -0700 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <970417112424.ZM24443@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 11:24:24 -0700 In-Reply-To: <970417105749.ZM24373@candle.brasslantern.com> Comments: In reply to "Bart Schaefer" "Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To" (Apr 17, 10:57am) References: <4539.861261738@munnari.OZ.AU> <4626.861268390@munnari.OZ.AU> <970417105749.ZM24373@candle.brasslantern.com> Reply-To: schaefer@nbn.com X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.820 20aug96) To: Robert Elz Subject: Reply-To as a restriction rather than a redirection Cc: drums@cs.utk.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Apr 17, 10:57am, I wrote: } Subject: Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To } } The Reply-To header contains the set of addresses to which the sender } desires the recipient to direct those replies that would otherwise have } been directed to the sender's address. Reply-To has never indicated a } preference that replies not be sent to any other addresses (e.g. To, Cc). Note that the above interpretation is the only possible one in the case of the most common use of Reply-To, an example of which is this very message. I habitually point Reply-To at my ISP maildrop rather than to my personal machine. This is most definitely *not* the *only* address to which I feel it is appropriate to send replies; it is the address to which replies *to me* should be sent. If the following interpretation were applied: } } All that rfc822bis should be saying about Reply-To is that it } } is used to contain the complete set of addreses that the sender } } believes are appropriate for replies to this message. then I would be forced either to include the To and Cc recipients in the Reply-To, which is an even worse misstatement of my intentions; or I would be forced to forego the Reply-To field entirely, which could cause replies meant for me personally to go astray. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.nbn.com/people/lantern