Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id FAA19510; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 05:47:35 -0400 X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 05:47:33 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 FAA19503; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 05:47:26 -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 LAA18401; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 11:47:19 +0200 Received: by ester.dsv.su.se.noname (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA00989; Sat, 16 Sep 95 11:47:17 +0200 Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 11:47:16 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jacob Palme To: "Brent B. Welch" Cc: ietf-drums Subject: Re: your mail In-Reply-To: <9509151650.AA07129@sage.Eng.Sun.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 15 Sep 1995, Brent B. Welch wrote: > Can you remind me why: > "From" could not be equivalent to "Personal-Reply-To" > and "Reply-To" could not be equivalent to "Wide-Reply-To" ?? I am not sure yet whether there is a need to distinguish between "From:" and "Personal-Reply-To". Possible cases might be when you send an inquiry, and want the replies to go to a special mailbox for collection of replies. But in that case, perhaps "Single-Reply-To" might be a better name for this field than "Personal-Reply-To". The reason "Reply-To" cannot be equivalent to "Wide-Reply-To" is (a) It is easy to misunderstand (b) Not to break the present functionality of "Reply-To" during the transition period. I.e. if there are two widely used interpretations of one heading fields, it is sometimes better to make a soft migration to a new standard if you invent two new heading fields and successively make the old field historic. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jacob Palme (Stockholm University and KTH) for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme