Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id GAA10589; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 06:53:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.7); Mon, 29 Sep 1997 06:53:40 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id GAA10555; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 06:53:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from edelweb.fr (edelweb.fr [193.51.12.16]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id GAA10527; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 06:53:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from champagne.edelweb.fr (champagne.edelweb.fr [193.51.14.161]) by edelweb.fr with ESMTP id MAA18835 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 12:53:18 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from emeriau.gctech.edelweb.fr (emeriau.gctech.edelweb.fr [193.51.14.5]) by champagne.edelweb.fr (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id MAA11118 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 12:53:17 +0200 From: Peter Sylvester Received: (sylvest@localhost) by emeriau.gctech.edelweb.fr (8.6.10/8.6.6) id MAA11225 for drums@cs.utk.edu; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 12:53:17 +0200 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 12:53:17 +0200 Message-Id: <199709291053.MAA11225@emeriau.gctech.edelweb.fr> To: drums@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: Reply-To problem (Was: Issues from the past few weeks) > > > > 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. No, I do not mean your definition of ambiguous. There are many examples in standards 'for further study' because there are diverging opinions. I don't like the marxistic approach: I am not discussing the difference between personal and group replies. I am not even discussing replies at all, except saying (claiming) that it is a new message where a UI can use some information from a received message to help/guide/mislead the user to create the recipient list, and to fill in the in-reply-to:, references ... to indicate that a message is a reply to the other message.