Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!brl-adm!adm!Jacob_Palme_QZ%QZCOM.MAILNET@mit-multics.arpa
From: Jacob_Palme_QZ%QZCOM.MAILNET@mit-multics.arpa
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
Subject: reply-to
Message-ID: <904@brl-adm.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 18-Nov-86 16:08:59 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-adm.904
Posted: Tue Nov 18 16:08:59 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Nov-86 21:39:25 EST
Sender: news@brl-adm.ARPA
Lines: 28

> FROM: Scott J. Kramer <sjk@grape.ads.ARPA>
>
> When the recipient responds to a message with a REPLY-TO which also
> has CC addresses, the CC's are omitted in the reply; only the REPLY-TO
> address is used.  RFC822 isn't specific about this; it just says "if
> REPLY-TO exists, then the reply should go to the addresses indicated
> in that field and not to the address(es) indicated in the FROM field."
>
> I'm CC'ing Header-People on this since someone there may know of a way
> to do what I'm trying to do (ie, have CC's get replies if I use
> REPLY-TO).  From what I can tell, the only way is to have a valid FROM
> field.

Hear! Hear!

The solution to your problem is something I have been arguing
for for a long time, but not yet got enough people convinced
of. There should be two different "reply-to" fields, with different
names, one to serve as a replacement for the originator only, and
one to serve as a replacement for all recipients.

Thus, if your mail system, as many of them have, has two commands
to write replies, one for replies only to the originator, and one
for replies to all recipients, then the first command should use
the value from one of the two "reply-to" fields, and the
other should use the value from the other kind of "reply-to" field.

Jacob Palme, QZ Computer Center, Stockholm, Sweden