reply-to

Thread View: comp.mail.headers

2 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

2 total messages Started by Jacob_Palme_QZ%QZCOM.MAILNET Tue, 18 Nov 1986 21:08

#270

Author: Jacob_Palme_QZ%QZCOM.MAILNET
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1986 21:08

28 lines
1807 bytes

> 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

Re: reply-to

#274

Author: Robert Elz
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1986 19:59

30 lines
2004 bytes

Jacob is clearly right, 2 reply-to headers are needed.  This has
no implication for control of to whom users may send replies,
obviously, someone who wants to reply to mail can send the reply
to anyone he feels like (including the return-path if he wants).

What's at issue here, is that its currently undefined what the
sender means when he inserts a reply-to header, that is, what
information he's trying to pass to the recipient of the mail.

There are two reasonable meanings.  One is that the sender is
saying "Don't reply to the From: address, its not where I
want replies to go, use this address instead".  The other is
"I would prefer if you would send replies only to this address,
and not to others on the From, To and Cc lines".

RFC822 doesn't make it clear which of these meanings a Reply-To
header is intended to have.  One solution would simply be to
make that clear.  But then we'd have a useful possible meaning
with no way to generate it.  The easy way to fix that is to allow
a new header for the meaning that's left out.

The only affect any of this will have on the recipient of a message
would be the default addresses that the "reply" command in the
mailer sets up in the outgoing message.  Nothing is going to prevent
users replying to messages from modifying those addresses in any
way they see fit.  (I sometimes "reply" to a message, and end up sending
the reply to no-one who saw the original message, or whose address
was mentioned in it anywhere...)

Robert Elz			kre%munnari.oz@seismo.css.gov

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads