Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id KAA10135; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 10:48:18 -0400 X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 10:48:13 EDT Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU Received: from po8.andrew.cmu.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id KAA10112; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 10:48:11 -0400 Received: (from postman@localhost) by po8.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA04202; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 10:47:48 -0400 Received: via switchmail; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 10:47:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nifty.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 10:47:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: via niftymail; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 10:46:55 -0400 (EDT) Sender: Chris Newman Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 10:46:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Chris Newman Subject: Re: To: Jacob Palme cc: ietf-drums In-Reply-To: <9509151650.AA07129@sage.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <9509151650.AA07129@sage.Eng.Sun.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <811435614.3668.0@nifty.andrew.cmu.edu> "Brent B. Welch" writes: > Can you remind me why: > "From" could not be equivalent to "Personal-Reply-To" Because you may want the personal reply to go to a different person or persons from the individual on whose behalf the message was sent. In addition, all email clients implemented according to 822 must override "From" with "Reply-To" when "Reply-To" is present. In addition, the practice of auto-generating "From" will not go away, so this would prevent some users from including a "Personal-Reply-To" that's different from their MUA's concept of their local mailbox. I am opposed to loosening the requirement that "Reply-To" always overrides "From" because: 1) This will break some user's expectation that when "Reply-To" is present, the "From" address will never be used. 2) This will encourage even greater use of the wide-reply use of the "Reply-To" header, leaving all correctly implemented RFC822 clients unable to do personal replies even more often. > and "Reply-To" could not be equivalent to "Wide-Reply-To" ?? Currently, "Wide-Reply-To" is one of the permitted meanings of "Reply-To". However, we already have concensus that banning the other meanings of "Reply-To" is not possible, so this would leave the status-quo ambiguity intact. I am opposed to any change in the meaning of "Reply-To" by this working group. I believe the meaning cannot be changed to correct the current ambiguity without creating new headers. ----- Chris Newman , http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~nifty/ The worst thing about censorship is: [censored]