Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id SAA12066; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 18:03:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.9); Wed, 25 Mar 1998 18:02:35 -0500
Received:  
        by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id SAA11997; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 18:02:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from THOR.INNOSOFT.COM (THOR.INNOSOFT.COM [192.160.253.66]) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id SAA11983; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 18:02:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from elwood.innosoft.com ("port 53922"@ELWOOD.INNOSOFT.COM)
 by INNOSOFT.COM (PMDF V5.1-10 #8694)
 with SMTP id <01IV35SOEWWA8Y5JXS@INNOSOFT.COM> for drums@cs.utk.edu; Wed,
 25 Mar 1998 15:00:59 PST
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 15:02:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com>
Subject: Re: Reply-Target Proposal
In-reply-to: <v04010f02b13f2a239fec@resnick2.qualcomm.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Cc: Detailed Revision/Update of Message Standards <drums@cs.utk.edu>
Message-id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.980325145033.3495G-100000@elwood.innosoft.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Originator-Info: login-id=chris; server=THOR.INNOSOFT.COM

On Wed, 25 Mar 1998, Pete Resnick wrote:
> Interesting. So, how would this differ from having both Mail-Followup-To
> and Private-Reply-To as fields (or choose the name you like)?

It doesn't have an equivalent to the "group-only" or "private-only" kinds.
Those are necessary to express sender desire.

> Though having
> different <kind>s is more extensible, I'm not completely sure that it's a
> good idea to make this *too* easily extensible.

I'm not sure either, but neither am I sure that
group/group-only/private/private-only will be the only common case reply
kinds ever needed.  The "manual" kind is a bit complex, but it makes
extensions both possible and not too easy.

> Also, what prevents lists from using Reply-Target? Just the fact that there
> is another mechanism specifically designed for them? If so, could this also
> be added to Mail-Followup-To+Private-Reply-To?

Yes.

		- Chris