Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id HAA14265; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 07:58:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.7); Thu, 25 Sep 1997 07:57:05 -0400
Received:  
        by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id HAA14189; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 07:57:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from beatles.cselt.it (beatles.cselt.it [163.162.29.125]) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id HAA14178; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 07:56:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mau@localhost)
          by beatles.cselt.it (8.8.6/8.8.5) id NAA21413 
	  for Drums@cs.utk.edu; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 13:55:56 +0200 (MET DST)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 13:55:56 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Maurizio Codogno <mau@beatles.cselt.it>
Message-Id: <199709251155.NAA21413@beatles.cselt.it>
To: Drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Reply-to, etc.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-MD5: xYALFjtnmWWHRs2LsH04DA==

I personally agree with the interpretation
- From: is the author of the message
- Reply-To: is the intended recipient of a reply

(like the original message I am replying to :-) )

I routinely use this convention when I write messages under the hat 
of the Usenet it.* coordination group, for example: it's a bit annoying,
since I must edit header by hand, but is seems to me that it is the 
most logical solution.

Anyway I am not a zealot - what I want is a *clear* specification,
whichever it turns out to be.

ciao, .mau.