Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id HAA10662; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 07:21:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.9); Mon, 30 Mar 1998 07:20:21 -0500
Received:  
        by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id HAA10598; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 07:20:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from beatles.cselt.it (beatles.cselt.it [163.162.29.125]) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id HAA10584; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 07:20:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mau@localhost)
          by beatles.cselt.it (8.8.6/8.8.5) id OAA00837 
	  for drums@cs.utk.edu; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 14:34:28 +0200 (MET DST)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 14:34:28 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Maurizio Codogno <mau@beatles.cselt.it>
Message-Id: <199803301234.OAA00837@beatles.cselt.it>
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Reply-To Harsh realities
Reply-To: drums@cs.utk.edu

Claus:

% Not exactly. I think it is better to have two fields: One that is added  
% by the senders UA and one that is added by the list exploder. Maybe
% List-ID by the list and Lists/List-Followup-To by the sender.

I was thinking on the same line. If list software can specify that it
actually is a list, itcould be simple to add smartness to MUA, and come out
with a solution both technically and real-life feasible.

ciao, .mau.