IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Email Subaddressing

"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@koobera.math.uic.edu> Fri, 01 August 1997 20:19 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa05605; 1 Aug 97 16:19 EDT
Received: from mail.proper.com (mail.proper.com [206.86.127.224]) by cnri.reston.va.us (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTPid QAA04461; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 16:17:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id MAA16259 for ietf-822-bks; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 12:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from koobera.math.uic.edu (qmailr@koobera.math.uic.edu [131.193.178.247]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA16255 for <ietf-822@imc.org>; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 12:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 17847 invoked by uid 666); 1 Aug 1997 19:50:18 -0000
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 19:50:17 -0000
Message-ID: <19970801195017.17846.qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu>
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@koobera.math.uic.edu>
To: ietf-822@imc.org
Subject: Re: Email Subaddressing
Sender: owner-ietf-822@imc.org
Precedence: bulk

> In fact, you were recently
> suggesting that a Wide-Reply-To header be standardized

Absolutely not.

I have suggested that the IETF _define_ useful ``reply'' concepts.

I have repeatedly emphasized that the relation between those ``reply''
concepts and the user interface is none of the IETF's business.

I have also pointed out several times that ``Wide-Reply-To'', being new
functionality, is not ready for standardization.

> almost every application protocol has a profound
> impact on the way a user interface works.

Most protocols have at most a superficial effect on user interfaces. The
occasional protocols designed for human use as well as computer use,
such as RFC 822, are interoperability disasters, certainly not something
to be imitated.

---Dan
Set up a new mailing list in a single command. http://pobox.com/~djb/ezmlm.html

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email