Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id CAA17182; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 02:57:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.9); Tue, 24 Mar 1998 02:57:16 -0500
Received:  
        by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id CAA17143; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 02:57:16 -0500 (EST)
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 CAA17081; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 02:56:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 4805 invoked by uid 666); 24 Mar 1998 07:57:57 -0000
Date: 24 Mar 1998 07:57:57 -0000
Message-ID: <19980324075757.4803.qmail@cr.yp.to>
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Respond-To, Also-Respond-To, List-Respond-To
Mail-Followup-To: drums@cs.utk.edu
References: <199803240442.XAA04916@spot.cs.utk.edu>

Keith Moore writes:
> Okay, here's a last ditch attempt to produce a reply propsal
> within the lifetime of DRUMS that can gain consensus:

I see lots of text there but no explanation of how MUAs should behave.

Please pick a popular MUA---Eudora, Netscape, Pine, Elm, Pegasus, Mutt,
whatever---and explain exactly what you want the implementor to do.

---Dan
Smaller, faster, safer than inetd+tcpd. http://pobox.com/~djb/ucspi-tcp.html