Charles Lindsey wrote:
In <414B8EDD(_dot_)3090605(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:
Charles Lindsey wrote:
It is quite clear to me that _any_solution to the problems we are
dicussing will require changes to MUAs before it becomes effective. MFT is
a nice solution on the face of it, but requires the most change to
existing MUAs.
And MTAs.
Why MTAs? MSAs perhaps.
Some MTAs rewrite addresses. For example, a border MTA may rewrite
foo(_at_)bar(_dot_)baz(_dot_)com as foo(_at_)baz(_dot_)com in order to hide
internal host names.
If such addresses are rewritten in the envelope and in standard
address fields, then any new address field that is intended to be
used by recipients should be similarly processed.
Mail-Copies-To would he easier to introduce, but it does
not do such a good job.
Not easier -- it has the same problems and requires MUA and MTA
changes.
What MTA support?
See above.
Looks like we have to choose some least-harmful
alternative. Reply-To is what we have at the moment, and it is clearly not
working.
It works fine for me...
But not for anybody else, apparently.
It seems to work fine for others that use it also.
It is well enough defined for us to understand what it would entail.
Where's the ABNF? Where's the definition of how the field is handled
w.r.t. message fragmentation and reassembly? Where's the discussion
w.r.t. interaction with Reply-To in RFC 2822? Where's the discussion
about automatic responses in RFC 3834?
We are discussing a suggestion that it might be introduced as a solution
to the problem. You do not need ABNF and a full draft (though they would
be required eventually). But, if you insist, that you may consult
ftp://ftp.dsv.su.se/users/jpalme/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00b.txt.
Oddly, that draft does not actually specify any ABNF, but you may assume
it intended syntax similar to the Reply-To field in RFC 2822.
Actually there is a syntax specification (however it omits the
colon which delimits field name from field body...). You also
seem to be very confused about address fields; you claim that
the syntax in Jacob's 5-year-old draft is intended to be like
that of the Reply-To field, but Jacob's draft specifies a
mailbox-list whereas Reply-To uses an address list. That
draft would make wide responses difficult at best, since it
deprecates such wide responses. There are provisions that are
impractical for implementation.