Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id HAA24894; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 07:24:44 -0500 Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.3); Thu, 7 Dec 1995 07:24:31 -0500 Received: from ester.dsv.su.se by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id HAA24881; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 07:24:29 -0500 Received: (from jpalme@localhost) by ester.dsv.su.se (8.7.1/8.7.1) id NAA07634; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 13:24:23 +0100 (MET) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 13:24:22 +0100 (MET) From: Jacob Palme To: Jim Conklin cc: ietf-drums Subject: Re: Clarify amibuities) In-Reply-To: <199512062341.SAA24666@info.cren.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 6 Dec 1995, Jim Conklin wrote: > I must respectfully disagree with you, Jacob. > I believe that "reply-to gives the e-mail address to which the sender > wants replies to be sent" is, in fact, both accurate and satisfactory. > What we have with Reply-To is really not an ambiguity but a situation in > which the header is used in multiple, non-ambiguous ways, all of which meet > the needs of certain situations, and each of which results in the reply > mail being delivered to the address to which the sender (whether it be an > individual or an agent) intends the reply to be delivered. What is the difference between "multiple, non-ambiguous ways" and "ambiguous"? I do not understand. If the same header is used in different ways, with no indication of which way is intended when it is used, then to my understanding if English this is ambiguous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jacob Palme (Stockholm University and KTH) for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme