Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-smoke!smoke!jordan@ucb-arpa.ARPA
From: jordan@ucb-arpa.ARPA (Jordan Hayes)
Newsgroups: net.mail.headers
Subject: Re: loop detection
Message-ID: <1077@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 18-Feb-86 18:47:19 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.1077
Posted: Tue Feb 18 18:47:19 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Feb-86 20:41:02 EST
Sender: news@brl-smoke.ARPA
Lines: 27


	From galvin@dewey.udel.EDU Tue Feb 18 06:31:43 1986

	The next step is to teach mail user agents about a "Reply-To:"
	field.  If they would let you insert one then individuals could
	specify to keep the discussion on the mailing list, not in
	his/her personal mailbox.  Note mine.

Also note that you not only sent the list a copy, but me a personal one
as well, even though I'm on the list. Not a big deal on the internet,
but a very big deal in csnet/phonenet or UUCP world (even mailnet).

Hmmm ... you're correct about needing smarter user agents, but I think
that the concept of "mailing list" means that if you have something
to add, you should add to it, and not reply directly. So, making the
exploder claim responsibility and adding a "Reply-To:" field makes
dumb UAs send replys to the list, which is what it should do.

The problem you run into is error detection. If there is an error
somewhere down the line, mailer-daemons "return to sender" which now is
the entire list. This is bad. So, the exploder need only check for
itself in the From: field, and forward to the list maintainer.

I sorta like the idea that rn has about having an {r,R} reply to the
sender, and a {f,F} reply to the list. Not both.

/jordan