From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>
To: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
cc: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>, drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Implementation status of "Mail-Followup-To" 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 03 Apr 1998 15:36:26 +0100."
             <v04003a00b14aa1d7d53e@[198.94.11.151]> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 11:53:47 -0800
Message-ID: <2674.891633227@aussie.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Sender: kre@cs.mu.OZ.AU

    Date:        Fri, 3 Apr 1998 15:36:26 +0100
    From:        Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
    Message-ID:  <v04003a00b14aa1d7d53e@[198.94.11.151]>

    What would you prefer, in that case? If you think "Mail-Followup-To"
    is too "simple" and "does not have the flexibility needed", do you
    think a more complex header,

I think something like that is a better all round solution, if we need
one like that, and there seems to be considerable opinion that we do
(personally I am less sure, but if we do, we ought do it properly).

    Or are you against the whole idea of a header, which is to be used by
    the "reply-to-all" commands which most mailers have one way or
    another?

Reply to all is something almost no-pone wants.  That is, no-one really
wamnts "all", what they want is the relevant subset, so we should stop
using "all" or "everyone".  As soon as you do that, you have to think
about just who is meant, and that's where things start getting more complex.
    
kre