Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu!bob
From: bob@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield)
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Reply-To: nits
Message-ID: <BOB.89Sep12151250@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 12 Sep 89 19:12:50 GMT
Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Reply-To: bob@cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield)
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Computer & Information Science
Lines: 19

I received the following comment from a correspondent:

   (b) I'm more upset, personally, by people like you who set up
       "Reply-to:" entries that break vnews.

In the way I had my Reply-To: arranged, I was going by the last
paragraph of RFC1036 2.1.6 and the first sentence of 2.2.1 which
indicate that Reply-To: could contain any RFC822-legal "Internet
format" mail address.  But I completely missed the last sentence of
2.2.1 which might disallow the notation I've been using [name
<address>] by specifying the other [address (name)] as an option.

I had always considered that Reply-To: was of interest only to
mailers, and therefore only needed to be an 822-legal address.  But it
now seems that 1036 addresses the issue more directly than I had
originally though.

In the interests of being conservative in what I generate, I have
changed my Reply-To:, for now, just in case.  Any comments?