To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: wishful thinking vs. reality 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "22 Oct 1997 14:41:16 GMT."
             <19971022144116.13937.qmail@cr.yp.to> 
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 01:01:19 +1000
Message-Id: <334.877532479@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>

    Date:        22 Oct 1997 14:41:16 -0000
    From:        "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
    Message-ID:  <19971022144116.13937.qmail@cr.yp.to>

  | > To: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
  | Eric, I asked you not to send me extra copies of your messages.

If there ever was an example of what we should be using Reply-To
for, it is to solve exactly that problem.   It is pointless (most of
the time) to ask humans to remember what you (generic you, not Dan you)
want done with replies, it is very easy to config a rational mail client
"when I send To: drums@cs.utk.edu I want Reply-To: drums@cs.utk.edu"
and that makes it very easy for a rational UA to assist the user at
the other end do what you want.

I still fail to comprehend how it is that people cannot see that this
is the single most important possible use of the Reply-To header.

kre

ps: and I did volunteer to write a draft for Chris' #1 proposal on the
use of Reply-To, it just has to wait a few more days until I get out from
under some real work (the kind I get paid to do).   Maybe over the weekend.
In the meantime, don't assume that Eric's proposal is all that is coming.