Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id LAA13297; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 11:15:31 -0400 X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 11:15:28 EDT Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id LAA13272; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 11:15:22 -0400 Message-Id: <199509181515.LAA13272@CS.UTK.EDU> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0536; Mon, 18 Sep 95 17:15:22 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2b/1.8b) with RFC822 id 0778; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 17:15:19 +0200 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 17:12:58 +0200 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Resent- facility To: Jacob Palme cc: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, Keith Moore , ietf-drums In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 18 Sep 1995 15:25:30 +0200 (MET DST) from Jacob Palme On Mon, 18 Sep 1995 15:25:30 +0200 (MET DST) Jacob Palme said: >The "Reply all" command could be designed to automatically fetch >addresses also from the included message. Or only from that message. If the question is "can such code be written", the answer is yes. But if you ask yourself whether this is something that makes sense or should be encouraged, I'm afraid the answer is no. There isn't even a standard for how this included message should be formatted. We all know how PINE and Eudora do it and one can write a big program with kludges for all the major mail programs, but this just results in a big mess. Eric