Skip to main content

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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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

Chris Newman

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