Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA15355; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 12:40:25 -0500 (EST) Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.9); Mon, 23 Mar 1998 12:38:52 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA15257; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 12:38:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from resnick1.qualcomm.com (resnick1.qualcomm.com [206.139.85.98]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA15224; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 12:38:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (206.139.85.99) by resnick1.qualcomm.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.1b3); Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:38:10 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: resnick@resnick1.qualcomm.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19980323122220.44640@snark.thyrsus.com> References: ; from Pete Resnick on Mon, Mar 23, 1998 at 10:56:19AM -0600 ; ; <19980319235538.12464@snark.thyrsus.com> <19980323115540. X-Mailer: Eudora [Macintosh version 4.0.1b14-4.98] Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:38:12 -0600 To: "Eric S. Raymond" From: Pete Resnick Subject: Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem Cc: DRUMS WG I'm going to convince Eric of this if it takes me all week: On 3/23/98 at 11:22 AM -0600, Eric S. Raymond wrote: >I quote Dave: "There was no intent to override sending replies to To or cc." And to further quote Dave: "To and cc are nowhere in such a discussion." That is to say, yes, there was no intent to override sending replies to To or Cc, but neither was there an intent that replies-to-everyone MUST (or SHOULD) go to To or Cc. The fields were simply not being referred to. >This is precisely the intention of my Personal-Reply-To proposal. No, your proposal says: >The contents of "Reply-To:" SHOULD NOT replace any other fields (such as >"To:", "Cc:", and "Bcc:") in assembling reply lists. 822 makes no such statement, nor does Dave say there was any intent to say such a thing. 822 is SILENT with regard to the interaction between Reply-To and To, Cc, and Bcc. There was no intent to say anything about it. >The behavior I am trying to capture in my terminology (and in my Reply-To >draft) is > >(a) identical by design to Dave Crocker's statement of RFC822's intentions on >27 Sep 1997 and all his statements since. In that you miss the mark, and I think it's why you continue to use "Personal-Reply-To". 822 had no intention of making the distinction between "personal" and "group" replies. It was simple replies only. >(b) identical (by actual survey, full results given in my draft) to the >actual default practice of almost all MUAs. That you have done well. >That iis, Reply-To replaces From but not To and Cc. I agree that this is what MUAs do. I disagree that this is what 822 says or intends. Reply-To does replace From. What Reply-To does in realtion to To and Cc is undefined. The fact is that many of us (including myself) think it would be a good idea to have some way to specify "group" reply targets in the message. We just don't want Reply-To used for that purpose because it has already been otherwise abused and there's no saving it for that purpose. On the other hand, I for one don't think we should codify the current silly use of Reply-To as "my MUA is broken so here's my address". That's just as bad. Please, read my "second attempt" message and see if you can live with that in 822bis. If so, let's move Reply-To discussions to another thread and away from 822bis. pr pr -- Pete Resnick QUALCOMM Incorporated Work: (217)337-6377 or (619)651-4478 / Fax: (217)337-1980