Reply-To-Meaning Proposal
draft-ietf-drums-replyto-meaning-00

Document Type Expired Internet-Draft (drums WG)
Author Chris Newman 
Last updated 1997-12-03
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Expired & archived
plain text pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state Expired
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft can be found at
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-drums-replyto-meaning-00.txt

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

Chris Newman (chris.newman@sun.com)

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)