Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id TAA10232; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 19:10:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.9); Wed, 8 Apr 1998 19:09:01 -0400
Received:  
        by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id TAA10102; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 19:09:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from bgumail.bgu.ac.il (bgumail.bgu.ac.il [132.72.143.1]) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id TAA10023; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 19:08:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (uzipaz@localhost)
	by bgumail.bgu.ac.il (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id CAA06565
	for <drums@cs.utk.edu>; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 02:09:21 +0200 (IST)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 02:09:21 +0200 (IST)
From: Uzi Paz  <uzipaz@bgumail.bgu.ac.il>
To: IETF working group on revision of mail standards <drums@cs.utk.edu>
Subject: Re: A solution for group reply redirection which everyone might accept? 
In-Reply-To: <199804082139.RAA07193@spot.cs.utk.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.96.980409020538.9214B-100000@bgumail.bgu.ac.il>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On 08 Apr 1998 17:39 -0400, Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> wrote:

> Take out the word "group" (perhaps replace it with "nonpersonal")
> and I'd agree with you.
> 
> 1) the author needs to be able to specify replies which are neither
>    "personal" nor "group" (and may not fall into any particular category)
> 
> 2) it's a Bad Thing if the responder thinks he's replying to the whole 
>    group, when he's really replying to where the author suggested that
>    replies be sent.
> 
> 3) it's a Bad Thing if the responder cannot easily reply to the whole 
>    group, just because the author has suggested a different destination 
>    for replies.
> 
> Modulo these subtle issues, Mail-Followup-To is actually pretty 
> similar to the Respond-To field that I proposed.
>    
> Keith

This solves my conceptual problems with M-F-T.

Uzi