[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Keith's proposal

1997-07-09 11:47:12
} Keith proposes using From whether or not Reply-To exists.
I've seen no evidence that this is what Keith proposes,

Then you aren't paying attention. Here's Keith's proposal:

I don't really think there is a big need to allow a sender to
separately specify "reply to address-list X if you want to just reply
to me", and "reply to address-list Y if you want to followup".  Even
for those times when this is needed, the author can use From for the
former, and Reply-to for the latter. (With Sender used to indicate the
author's "real" address)

For this to work as described, the first function, reply-to-author, has
to use From and ignore Reply-To.

other than your willful misrepresentations.


Based on what Keith has written, I interpret his proposal

Hint for the clueless: You have to read it before you can interpret it.

  [ RFC 822 4.4.4 ]
However, that undermines your own proposal as much as it does Keith's.

Don't be ridiculous. Nothing in RFC 822 ``undermines'' the use of new
header fields for extended functions. In fact, extension fields and
user-defined fields are explicitly permitted.

Keith's proposal is different. He's changing the semantics of Reply-To
and From, with no label to indicate the change.

Let your users manage their own mailing lists.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>