From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/13930 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Robert Elz Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Mail-{Reply,Followup}-To considered harmful Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:15:01 +1100 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: <19144.887238901@munnari.OZ.AU> References: <199802112219.RAA12647@math34.math.gatech.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035153206 11915 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 22:33:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 22:33:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: nmh-workers@math.gatech.edu, exmh-users@sunlabs.Eng.Sun.COM, ding@gnus.org Return-Path: Original-Received: from xemacs.org (xemacs.cs.uiuc.edu [128.174.252.16]) by altair.xemacs.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA05581 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:21:35 -0800 Original-Received: from gizmo.hpc.uh.edu (gizmo.hpc.uh.edu [129.7.102.31]) by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA20961 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:18:14 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (sina.hpc.uh.edu [129.7.3.5]) by gizmo.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAN15057; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:54:33 -0600 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:17:38 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from claymore.vcinet.com (claymore.vcinet.com [208.205.12.23]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA20347 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:17:29 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (qmail 6827 invoked by uid 504); 11 Feb 1998 23:17:25 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 6824 invoked from network); 11 Feb 1998 23:17:19 -0000 Original-Received: from munnari.OZ.AU (128.250.1.21) by claymore.vcinet.com with SMTP; 11 Feb 1998 23:17:18 -0000 Original-Received: from mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU by munnari.OZ.AU with SMTP (5.83--+1.3.1+0.56) id XA18297; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:15:07 +1100 (from kre@munnari.OZ.AU) Original-To: Richard Coleman In-Reply-To: Richard Coleman's message of "Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:19:30 -0500." Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:13930 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:13930 Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:19:30 -0500 From: Richard Coleman Message-ID: <199802112219.RAA12647@math34.math.gatech.edu> | I also believe this proposal is a good way of fixing this problem. The | problem is the existence or absence of a single header is not enough | information. That is the reason the Reply-To header is typically implemented | in a way that goes against RFC-822 in certain cases. Not that it really matters why, but I doubt this. RFC-822 on reply-to is just almost hopeless. The reason people do what they do is more likely because they saw someone else doing that, and imagined it was correct, and copied - perhaps slightly varying things along the way. | Since the Reply-To header is interpreted differently by different people, | fixing this situation is impossible at this time. That is why the proposal | offers two new header fields "Mail-Reply-To" and "Mail-Followup-To". It is possible to write sensible useful semantics for a single reply-to type header field (whatever it is called). They won't necessarily do everything everyone wants, but sane and internally consistent and complete they would be. Two header fields only generates confusion. It tackles a different problem and doesn't solve all of it. It would be OK if there truly were exactly two different kinds of replies people might like to make, and while those two may cover 90% of the cases, they don't cover all. That is, this solution cannot be complete, it doesn't really solve any problem at all. kre