Re: Understanding response protocols

["Charles Lindsey" <[e-mail]>]

In <[e-mail]> Bruce Lilly <[e-mail]> writes:

>Charles Lindsey wrote:

>> It is quite clear to me that _any_solution to the problems we are
>> dicussing will require changes to MUAs before it becomes effective. MFT is
>> a nice solution on the face of it, but requires the most change to
>> existing MUAs.

>And MTAs.

Why MTAs? MSAs perhaps.

>> Mail-Copies-To would he easier to introduce, but it does
>> not do such a good job.

>Not easier -- it has the same problems and requires MUA and MTA
>changes.

What MTA support?

>> Looks like we have to choose some least-harmful
>> alternative. Reply-To is what we have at the moment, and it is clearly not
>> working.

>It works fine for me...

But not for anybody else, apparently.

>> It is well enough defined for us to understand what it would entail.

>Where's the ABNF? Where's the definition of how the field is handled
>w.r.t. message fragmentation and reassembly?  Where's the discussion
>w.r.t. interaction with Reply-To in RFC 2822?  Where's the discussion
>about automatic responses in RFC 3834?

We are discussing a suggestion that it might be introduced as a solution
to the problem. You do not need ABNF and a full draft (though they would
be required eventually). But, if you insist, that you may consult
ftp://ftp.dsv.su.se/users/jpalme/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00b.txt.
Oddly, that draft does not actually specify any ABNF, but you may assume
it intended syntax similar to the Reply-To field in RFC 2822.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [e-mail]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5