Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 13:10:11 +0100 (MET)
From: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
To: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>
cc: ietf-drums <drums@cs.utk.edu>
Subject: Re: Clarify amibuities 
In-Reply-To: <4426.818283804@munnari.OZ.AU>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951207130736.7205F-100000@ester.dsv.su.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

I do not agree. There is an ambiguity, since the sender might
wish to specify different recipients for different kinds
of replies. In practice, the use of "Reply-To" by LISTSERV to direct 
replies to the list, and the use of "Reply-To" by many mailers
to direct personal replies to the sender only, are clearly
two very different uses, which should not use the same header.

And the proposal by Keith does not remove the ambiguity, it only hides it,
which is just what you should not do in standards work. 

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