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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!don.provan@CMU-CS-A.ARPA
From: don.provan@CMU-CS-A.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.mail.headers
Subject: Re: Subject: Ambiguity with the REPLY-TO field
Message-ID: <11546@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 12-Jul-85 22:09:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.11546
Posted: Fri Jul 12 22:09:14 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 15-Jul-85 00:44:30 EDT
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 14

One problem here is that there are really three types of replies:
the personal and group replies you mentioned, and then a third one
that might be called a message directed reply or a default reply or a
normal reply.  The first sends the reply to the person who sent the
message, so I'd be tempted to use the From: field for that, although
I believe the From: field need not be legal if there's a Reply-to:
field.  The second sends the reply to everyone who saw the original
message.  The third sends the reply to anyone the sender thought
should see a reply.  The Reply-To: field was provided for this use.

So my feeling is that the people with the "personal reply" command
are trying to do something that isn't supported by the protocol.  If
it's supported at all, they should be replying to the From:  field,
not the Reply-To: field.