Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id XAA16197; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 23:33:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.7); Tue, 21 Oct 1997 23:29:35 -0400
Received:  
        by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id XAA16087; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 23:29:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from koobera.math.uic.edu (koobera.math.uic.edu [131.193.178.247]) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id XAA16074; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 23:29:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (qmail 9153 invoked by uid 666); 22 Oct 1997 03:09:49 -0000
Date: 22 Oct 1997 03:09:49 -0000
Message-ID: <19971022030949.9152.qmail@cr.yp.to>
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Reply-Personal Proposal, version 1

>        o  If the "Reply-To" field exists, then all reply lists 
>           assembled by the mail user agent MUST use the contents of the
>           Reply-to field in place of the contents of the From field.

This requirement is unacceptable.

Reply-To is often corrupted. Users demand an easy way to get around it.

pine supports a reply command that ignores Reply-To.

mutt supports a reply command that ignores Reply-To.

Some versions of BSD mail support a reply command that ignores Reply-To.

Completely missing from this discussion has been any explanation of what
the BENEFITS of this requirement are supposed to be.

> Mutt is in alpha and I am an accepted member of the development group;
> I believe I could talk the mutt people into fully conforming.

Oh, really? Let's see. Go ask Michael Elkins to remove his reply-to-From
feature, and tell us what he says.

---Dan
Put an end to fake mailing list subscriptions. http://pobox.com/~djb/ezmlm.html