Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id SAA07034; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 18:22:18 -0400
X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 18:22:16 EDT
Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id SAA07021; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 18:22:03 -0400
Message-Id: <199509152222.SAA07021@CS.UTK.EDU>
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 5983; Sat, 16 Sep 95 00:21:59 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2b/1.8b) with RFC822 id 7927; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 00:21:59 +0200
Date:        Sat, 16 Sep 1995 00:12:40 +0200
From: Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE>
Subject:     Re: Another header-munging example
To: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>,
        Mark Crispin <mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>,
        Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU>
cc: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>, ietf-drums <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>
In-Reply-To: Message of Fri, 15 Sep 1995 11:07:14 -0700 (PDT) from Mark Crispin
             <mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>

I just don't understand this  conversation about "clarifying" the meaning
of 'Reply-To:'. RFC822 *explicitly* allows  three particular uses, two of
which some of the members of this group would like to "clarify" away. I'm
sorry folks  but when a  standard document very  clearly says you  can do
something,  you  can't "clarify"  the  usage  away, especially  when  the
standard has been in force for 13  years. You can try to deprecate it (in
this particular case, I wish you good  luck), or, if you have a DAMN GOOD
REASON, like a whole  bunch of people unable to send  mail to each other,
you can outlaw it.  Put it another way, I don't see  any ambiguity in the
language of  RFC822 which would allow  you to claim that  it was actually
trying to say the exact opposite on items #1 and #3.

  Eric