Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!husc6!rutgers!brl-adm!adm!mrose@nrtc-gremlin.arpa
From: mrose@nrtc-gremlin.arpa (Marshall Rose)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
Subject: Re: Replying to Sender or (gasp) Return-path
Message-ID: <883@brl-adm.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 18-Nov-86 04:01:41 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-adm.883
Posted: Tue Nov 18 04:01:41 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Nov-86 09:00:35 EST
Sender: news@brl-adm.ARPA
Lines: 28


    This is NOT, repeat NOT, a case of DWIM.  The issue is simple:  mail
    composers should use "reply-to if" they want to redirect replies
    that would normally go to the "from" field; mail repliers should
    honor "reply-to" over "from", but need to be able to do something if
    neither field is present.  This is yet another example of the trite
    "be conservative in what you send, liberal in what you accept".  

    This emphasizes the key point of my original message:  the sender
    can use "reply-to", but it is upto the receiver to do the right
    thing.  The right thing is to use "reply-to" or "from" for the
    primary recipient(s) of the reply.  There is no concrete right thing
    for generating the list of secondary recipients (usually to and cc
    are the right thing, at the user's option).  For example, my
    original message had a "reply-to" of header-people, and my mailbox
    did NOT appear anywhere in the message except for "from".  I assume
    that Mark explicitly added my address to his reply.  In this case
    the mail composer used "reply-to" to redirect replies, and the mail
    replier did not honor this protocol.  

    A final note:  do not, as your previous message suggests, mistake
    the operation of replying with other message-handling functions
    (e.g., forwarding, and so on).  If you want to send the message to
    someone who will fix it up, you are NOT replying to the message.
    You are sending a message with a different purpose, not a reply to
    the original!

/mtr