Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id HAA03224; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 07:45:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.7); Sat, 27 Sep 1997 07:44:57 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id HAA03105; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 07:44:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ester.dsv.su.se (ester.dsv.su.se [130.237.161.10]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id HAA03093; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 07:44:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [193.55.113.87] (mmmac2.eurecom.fr [193.55.113.87]) by ester.dsv.su.se (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id NAA09300; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 13:44:45 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199709251542.RAA09548@emeriau.gctech.edelweb.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 11:07:55 +0200 To: Peter Sylvester , drums@cs.utk.edu From: Jacob Palme Subject: Re: Reply-To problem (Was: Issues from the past few weeks) At 17.42 +0200 97-09-25, Peter Sylvester wrote: > > Drums specifies in 822bis that "Reply-To" is meant to be > > "Personal-Reply-To" and not "Group-Reply-To"/"Reply-To-All"/ > > "Mail-Followup-To". > > This seems WRONG to me: reply-to is neutral in this respect. By "neutral" you in reality mean "ambiguous". Standards should not contain ambiguous specifications. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jacob Palme (Stockholm University and KTH) for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme