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.