Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA04068; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 12:35:26 -0400 X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 12:35:25 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 MAA03965; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 12:35:08 -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 SAA11651 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 18:34:54 +0200 Received: by ester.dsv.su.se.noname (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA28012; Fri, 15 Sep 95 18:34:54 +0200 Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 18:34:53 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jacob Palme To: ietf-drums Subject: Reply-To ambiguity Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII My impression from what Keith Moore writes is that he wants text in the new document which keeps "Reply-To" and allows it to be used both as "Personal-Reply-To" and "Wide-Reply-To" depending on the wishes of the sender and his mail software. This is exactly what one should not do in standards work, one should not hide contriversies by compromises which allows more than one interpretation of a standards construct. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jacob Palme (Stockholm University and KTH) for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme