Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id WAA29671; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 22:12:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.7); Wed, 22 Oct 1997 22:11:22 -0400
Received:  
        by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id WAA29585; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 22:11:20 -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 WAA29575; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 22:11:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (qmail 20955 invoked by uid 666); 23 Oct 1997 02:11:37 -0000
Date: 23 Oct 1997 02:11:37 -0000
Message-ID: <19971023021137.20954.qmail@cr.yp.to>
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" considered hopeless

> I just don't believe that his alternatives work any better.

``Alternatives'' to what?

Has someone else proposed a way to (1) eliminate the duplicates produced
by reply-to-all for mailing lists while (2) avoiding the problems caused
by Reply-To munging?

There's a problem here. The way to fix it is to write some code, not to
standardize the status quo.

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