Message-Id: <v03003f01aced8e7533a0@[129.46.54.59]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 02:27:38 -0600
To: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>, Jim Conklin <conklin@info.cren.net>
From: jwn2@qualcomm.com (John Noerenberg)
Subject: Re: Clarify amibuities)
Cc: ietf-drums <drums@cs.utk.edu>

At 1:24 PM 12/7/95, Jacob Palme wrote:

>On Wed, 6 Dec 1995, Jim Conklin wrote:


>>   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.

>


Jim is arguing that in each context in which Reply-To is used (two have
been mentioned, directing replies to lists and directing personal
replies), the intended destination of a reply to a message is clear:
the destination of a reply to this message must be sent to the value of
the Reply-To field.


This seems unambiguous to me, and perfectly implementable.


Ambiguities for the interpretation of Reply-To are introduced in the
presence of a Sender field.  The semantics of Sender have always been
confusing to me.  Reading over the definition of Sender, I'm inclined
to think it is an anachronism we can discard.  Discarding Sender
eliminates ambiguities for Reply-To.


I suggest deprecating Sender.  That kills 2 birds with one stone. :-)


best,


john noerenberg

jwn2@qualcomm.com

In Dallas 12/3 - 12/8 for IETF

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

  Whoso neglects learning in his youth,

  Loses the past and is dead for the future

  -- Euripides, Phrixus, [c. 420 B.C.]

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------