Reply-To-Meaning Proposal
draft-ietf-drums-replyto-meaning-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(drums WG)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Chris Newman | ||
| Last updated | 1997-12-03 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This is a candidate proposal for one way which the problems with the reply-to header in email could be resolved. Under no circumstances should this be implemented as it is only a candidate for a solution and no decision has yet been made. This proposal distinguishes the different incompatible uses of the Reply-To header with a new Reply-To-Meaning header. This has the advantage of being relatively simple, not invalidating most current practices and allowing mail user agents to present more predictable user interfaces.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)