Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
To: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
Cc: 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: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 04:49:11 +1000
Message-Id: <17714.811277351@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>

    Date:        Fri, 15 Sep 1995 17:38:03 +0200 (MET DST)
    From:        Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
    Message-ID:  <Pine.SUN.3.91.950915173308.27628B-100000@ester.dsv.su.se>

    (1) The "Reply-To" controversy is not about adding new functionality.
    The different interpretations of "Reply-To" are both in wide
    usage today.

Yes.   This is the problem.
    
    (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.

No, clarifying the language means picking one of the uses
to be blessed, and deprecating the other.   That is, removing
the ambiguity.

    (3) This is not only about mailing lists. It relates to all messages
    which have more than one recipient.

Absolutely, I wish we could simply forget about mailing lists
when discussing this topic, they are not relevant at all.

Even better, let's just refer back to Keith's "from the
chair" message of a couple of days ago, and leave it like that,
that is, now simply stop discussing this issue any more, at all.

kre