Message-Id: <v03110700b0b57eb0cbad@[166.49.1.63]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 12:30:00 +0100
To: IETF working group on revision of mail standards <drums@cs.utk.edu>
From: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
Subject: New solution to the Reply-To issue

I believe I have found a solution which does not have any of the major
drawbacks of any of the previous solutions we have discussed on this issue.
My new solution is not the very neatest solution, but it will work!

Solution: Keep "Reply-To". Add both "Mail-Followup-To" and "Reply-To-
Meaning", but do not include "Reply-All" in the value set for "Reply-To-
Meaning".

Advantages:

1. Mailing list owners can leave "Reply-To" and "Reply-To-Meaning"
   alone.

2. Old systems have their "Reply-To" without meaning, to do the best
   they can with it.

3. New systems can always see whether a "Reply-To" is of the new or
   the old variant: If there is a "Reply-To-Meaning", it is the new
   variant, otherwise it is the old variant.

4. The ambiguity of "Reply-To" is resolved by "Reply-to-Meaning".

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme