Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!Jacob_Palme_QZ%QZCOM.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
From: Jacob_Palme_QZ%QZCOM.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.mail.headers
Subject: Re: Subject: Ambiguity with the REPLY-TO field
Message-ID: <11643@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 17-Jul-85 14:38:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.11643
Posted: Wed Jul 17 14:38:11 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 04:42:24 EDT
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 20

The solution proposed by kre@ucb-vax.arpa is neat, but I am not
sure that it will work. Many mailing lists distribute to sub-
mailing-lists in many stages, and it will be difficult to arrange
for the personal copy and the list copy to follow the same path
through the hosts with the sub-lists.

Another problem is that users may not always, generally, want
their personal copies to be discarded if the message will reach
them via a bulletin-board.

In COM, where all mailing list messages are read via computer
conferences, we have found it very useful to have a facility
to send a message in exceptional cases both to the conference
and at the same time to a personal mailbox of a member of that
conference. (COM will then normally only show him the message
in his mailbox, not in the conference.) The reason for this is
that he may delay reading the conference if he has much to do,
and our users usually read their personal mailboxes first, so
this is a way of giving priority to certain conference messages
to certain members of those conferences.