To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Reply-to (1) wording? 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Nov 1997 23:57:14 -0000."
             <3.0.32.19971104214404.007b2e70@pop.dial.pipex.com> 
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 10:15:52 +1100
Message-Id: <6148.878685352@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>

    Date:        Tue, 04 Nov 1997 23:57:14 +0000
    From:        Graham Klyne <GK@ACM.ORG>
    Message-ID:  <3.0.32.19971104214404.007b2e70@pop.dial.pipex.com>

  | believe it captures the essence of the <reply-any> proposal without
  | actually contradicting RFC822.

It is almost impossible to contradict 822 in this area...

But no, aside from the technical error that you seem to be permitting
only one address, where Reply-To certainly permits many, you are missing
the essence of the proposal which is that Reply-To contains the complete
list of addresses that the sender requests be the addresses to which replies
are sent.    That's important, without that there's no way for the author
to expressly request that replies not be sent to a particular address.

This doesn't stop the recipient sending the reply anywhere at all of
course - it just must be clear that when sending to other than Reply-To
addresses the sender's desre is being ignored (for which there can be
all kinds of perfectly valid reasons).

kre