To: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
Cc: ietf-drums <drums@cs.utk.edu>
Subject: Re: Clarify amibuities 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 07 Dec 1995 13:10:11 BST."
             <Pine.SUN.3.91.951207130736.7205F-100000@ester.dsv.su.se> 
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 06:42:38 +1100
Message-Id: <4643.818365358@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>


    I do not agree. There is an ambiguity, since the sender might
    wish to specify different recipients for different kinds
    of replies.

That is exactly what I thought you were saying.   This is not
an ambiguity.  It may be a deficiency, I won't argue about that,
because the sender doesn't have all the facilities available
that he might want, he cannot say "if you want to send a reply
to just me, send here, but if you want to send to lots of people
then send there instead".   I agree, that may need to be fixed.
However if we define Reply-To: as "I want you to send replies (all
replies) to these addresses, and only these addresses" there is
absolutely no ambiguity left in the meaning of that statement.

This is something that we both can, and should, fix, as regardless
of whether it solves all the problems, it at least gets us
started toward a place where Reply-To is no longer useless for
everyone, regardless of whether it might still be useless for some.

kre