Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id OAA22693; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 14:22:02 -0500 Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.3); Mon, 11 Dec 1995 14:21:36 -0500 Received: from garage.qualcomm.com by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id OAA22621; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 14:21:29 -0500 Received: from [129.46.54.43] (annex-p3.qualcomm.com) by garage.qualcomm.com (post.office MTA v1.9.1 ID# 0-11142) with ESMTP id AAA1420; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 11:20:45 -0800 X-Sender: jwn2@mage.qualcomm.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Eudora [Macintosh version 3.0a64-1.96] X-PGP-Fingerprint: EA 53 01 A6 C0 76 F9 C2 09 E8 94 80 64 5A 88 57 Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 11:20:52 -0800 To: Jacob Palme , Jim Conklin From: jwn2@qualcomm.com (John Noerenberg) Subject: Re: Clarify amibuities) Cc: ietf-drums At 2:27 AM 12/8/95, John Noerenberg wrote: > >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. > Clearly, I lost my mind at about this point. < 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.] ----------------------------------------------------------------------