Message-Id: <v04003a1fb13fda414514@[130.237.150.138]>
In-Reply-To: 
 <Pine.SOL.3.95.980325113012.3495C-100000@elwood.innosoft.com>
References: <v04010f00b13f0435b8ad@resnick2.qualcomm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 11:14:59 +0100
To: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com>,
        Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
From: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
Subject: Re: Reply-To Harsh realities
Cc: Detailed Revision/Update of Message Standards <drums@cs.utk.edu>

At 20.48 +0100 98-03-25, Chris Newman wrote:
> > >* How it expresses "send all replies to this complete set of addresses"
> >
> > It only expresses "send all followups to this complete set of addresses".
> > It doesn't deal with the private case.
>
> Then the proposal is incomplete and I oppose it.

Why do you require that the "Mail-Followup-To" header must cater for
all kinds of reply-redirection options. What is wrong with two header
fields, "Personal-Reply-To" and "Group-Reply-To" which can be
combined when needed by putting the same address list in both.

Why are you not against having three separate header fields "To",
"Cc" and "Bcc" which each of them are incomplete since they do not
cover all recipient specification needs. Why must one header cater to
all redirection needs? Why are you not against "In-Reply-To" and
"References", which according to the new drums proposal will cater to
related needs and often contain partly the same content?

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