In <20041007160518(_dot_)07e64b1a(_dot_)moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
I don't think that's true at all. The way they tend to be implemented,
these extra header fields just make things more confusing.
Well the way(s) in which Reply-To is implemented certainly have that
effect, as you and others have pointed out.
Which merely argues for a new header with a carefully written semantics
and intended method of use.
perhaps. But the semantics and intended method are a lot harder to
define and get right than the syntax of the header field.
Indeed, careful writing is necessary.
But I think this discussion has now reached the point where we need a
concrete draft to look at and criticize. I would suggest that Jacob Palme
is the right person to write it (if he is listening and willing) since he
was the author of the last draft written on this subject. Possibly with
assistance from DJB.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave,
CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5