Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id NAA09253; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 13:23:17 -0400
X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 13:23:16 EDT
Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id NAA09247; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 13:23:13 -0400
Received: from localhost by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.11c-UTK)
          id NAA23832; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 13:23:08 -0400
Message-Id: <199509151723.NAA23832@wilma.cs.utk.edu>
X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
From: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>
To: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
cc: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>, Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE>,
        ietf-drums <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>
Subject: Re: Another header-munging example 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 15 Sep 1995 17:38:03 +0200."
             <Pine.SUN.3.91.950915173308.27628B-100000@ester.dsv.su.se> 
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 13:23:02 -0400
Sender: moore@CS.UTK.EDU

> (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.

Disagree.  It is certainly possible to state the meaning of the
Reply-To header in clearer language than is used in 822.  It is also
possible to clearly state the implications of using Reply-To for
certain purposes.

We have concensus that we cannot forbid certain uses of Reply-To.  We
can explain what Reply-To means. We can document the implications of
using Reply-To for mailing lists. We can document the implications of
using Reply-To (instead of From) to specify your "real" email address.
But if we keep Reply-To, all of those alternatives will still be legal.

I haven't yet seen anything even approaching concensus that we should
deprecate Reply-To and replace it with new headers.

Keith