Message-Id: <v04001705b053a771c13f@resnick2.qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <970927225244.ZM3652@candle.brasslantern.com>
References: <10874.875397040@munnari.OZ.AU> <10874.875397040@munnari.OZ.AU>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 01:26:40 -0500
To: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few weeks)
Cc: drums@cs.utk.edu

On 9/28/97 at 12:52 AM -0500, Bart Schaefer wrote:

>So here's what the -02 draft says about Reply-To ...
>
>    3.6.2
>
>    The originator fields also provide the information required to reply
>    to a message. When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the
>    mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests that replies
>    be sent. In the absence of the "Reply-To:" field, replies SHOULD be
>    sent to the mailbox(es) specified in the "From:" field.
>
>I don't quite follow what that `SHOULD' in the third sentence is for; sure
>reads like "expressing the meaning ... in terms of how a UA will use it" to
>me.

I'm a little worried about it myself. There is a sense in which "reply"
could mean an on-the-wire action (a message with appropriate In-Reply-To
and References fields might be a "reply"), but even in that case SHOULD
might be a little too strong. However, consistently the consensus of the WG
has been to leave it in there.

>    3.6.3
>
>    When a message is a reply to another message, the mailboxes of the
>    authors of the original message (the mailboxes in the "From:" or
>    "Reply-To:" fields) MAY appear in the "To:" field of the reply, since
>    that would normally be the primary recipient. If a reply is sent to a
>    message that has destination fields, it is often desirable to send a
>    copy of the reply to all of the recipients of the message in addition
>    to the author. When such a reply is formed, addresses in the "To:"
>    and "Cc:" fields of the original message MAY appear in the "Cc:"
>    field of the reply, since these are normally secondary recipients
>    of the reply. If a "Bcc:" field is present in the original message,
>    addresses in that field MAY appear in the "Bcc:" field of the reply,
>    but SHOULD NOT appear in the "To:" or "Cc:" fields.
>
>That's pretty obviously dictating UA behavior, wouldn't you say?  If this
>is OK, then what's wrong with stating that Reply-To "MUST" override From?

No. Dictating UA behavior in so far as how they actually form messages is
well within the scope of this document. Defining the buttons and commands
in the UA is not. The only directive that exists here (other than the MAYs)
is the SHOULD NOT on copying the Bcc. That's an on-the-wire issue that's
specifically related to a security consideration (exposing blind
recipients) and not intended to specify which buttons are to be used in a
UA or anything like it.

pr

--
Pete Resnick <mailto:presnick@qualcomm.com>
QUALCOMM Incorporated
Work: (217)337-6377 or (619)651-4478 / Fax: (217)337-1980