
Network Working Group                                        J. G. Myers
Internet Draft: The Wide-Reply-To: header                Carnegie Mellon
Document: internet-drafts/draft-myers-822-widereply-00.txt February 1995


                       The Wide-Reply-To: header


Status of this memo

   This document is an Internet Draft.  Internet Drafts are working
   documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its Areas,
   and its Working Groups.  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet Drafts.

   Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months.  Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
   other documents at any time.  It is not appropriate to use Internet
   Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a
   ``working draft'' or ``work in progress``.

   To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
   1id-abstracts.txt listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
   Directories on ds.internic.net, nic.nordu.net, ftp.isi.edu, or
   munnari.oz.au.

   A revised version of this draft document will be submitted to the RFC
   editor as a Proposed Standard for the Internet Community.  Discussion
   and suggestions for improvement are requested.  This document will
   expire before 15 Aug 1995.  Distribution of this draft is unlimited.


1. Introduction

   Past experience with various messaging systems shows the need for
   separate user agent functions for replying to the orgininator of a
   message and for replying to all other recipients of a message.  This
   document defines the Wide-Reply-To and Resent-Wide-Reply-To header
   fields which indicate addresses to be used for the latter form of
   reply.











Myers                                                           [Page 1]

Internet Draft         The Wide-Reply-To: header           February 1995


2. Automatic use of To / CC / Wide-Reply-To


   For user agent systems which automatically generate address lists for
   "wide replies"; replies intended to go to all recipients of a message
   as opposed to the originator of a message, the following
   recommendations are made:

   o    If the "Wide-Reply-To" field exists, then the reply should go to
        the the addresses indicated in that field and not to the
        address(es) indicated in the "To" or "CC" fields.

   o    If there are "To" or "CC" fields, but no "Wide-Reply-To" field,
        then the reply should go to the address(es) indicated in the
        "To" and "CC" fields.


3. Deprecated use of Reply-To in teleconferencing groups

   The use of the "Reply-To" field where the address of a "message
   teleconferencing" group equipped with automatic distribution service
   is included in all messages submitted to the teleconference is depre-
   cated and discouraged.


4. Formal Syntax

   The following syntax specification uses the augmented Backus-Naur
   Form (BNF) notation as specified in RFC 822.

      wide-headers =
                  "Resent-Wide-Reply-To" ":" 1#address /
                  "Wide-Reply-To"        ":" 1#address


5. Security Considerations

   Security issues are not discussed in this memo


6. Author's Address

   John G. Myers
   Carnegie-Mellon University
   5000 Forbes Ave.
   Pittsburgh PA, 15213-3890

   Email: jgm+@cmu.edu



Myers                                                           [Page 2]

Internet Draft         The Wide-Reply-To: header           February 1995


Appendix A: Former practice: netnews

   RFC 1036 defines a "Followup-To" header, which is similar in concept
   to "Wide-Reply-To".  Instead of listing addresses, "Followup-To"
   lists newsgroup names.  If the "Followup" header does not exist, RFC
   1036 specifies that the value of the "Newsgroups" field be used.  The
   "Newsgroup" field is the netnews equivalent of the "To" and "CC"
   fields.

   Practically all netnews user agents distinguish between the "reply"
   and "followup" functions.  The former sends a reply message to the
   originator of a message, the latter posts a reply message to one or
   more newsgroups.


Appendix B: Former practice: Andrew Message System

   AMS, the Andrew Message System, uses an "X-Andrew-WideReply" field,
   with semantics virtually identical to the "Wide-Reply-To" field
   described in this document.

   AMS user agents typically have three distinct reply commands.  The
   "Reply to Sender" command uses the "Reply-to" and "From" fields as
   described in RFC 822.  The "Reply to Readers" command uses the "X-
   Andrew-WideReply", "To", and "CC" fields.  The "Reply to All" command
   uses the union of addresses that would be provided by the "Reply to
   Sender" and "Reply to Readers" commands.

   The "X-Andrew-WideReply" header is not typically set by message ori-
   ginators.  It is, however, used extensively by the bulletin board
   filing system in order to ensure that wide replies to messages on
   bulletin boards get sent to the correct address.


Appendix C: Author's thoughts on combined originator and wide replies

   The question of when one should include the originator's address
   (Reply-To/From) in addition to the recipients' addresses (Wide-
   Reply-To/To/CC) when making a wide reply is a subject of some contro-
   versy.  Currently, different communities have different social norms.

   In netnews, the act of sending a reply to both the originator as e-
   mail and to a set of newsgroups is almost unheard of.  When it does
   happen, the originator will usually object to receiving a personal
   copy.  Reasons for objecting to the personal copy include that the
   user's primary mailbox is handled at a higher priority than the news-
   group, and that the user is fooled into thinking the reply is a per-
   sonal instead of a public one.



Myers                                                           [Page 3]

Internet Draft         The Wide-Reply-To: header           February 1995


   With Internet mailing lists, it is common for the originator to be
   given a personal copy of replies sent to the list.  Many originators
   like these personal copies--since the delivery bypasses the list
   exploder, the personal copy is usually delivered much more quickly
   than the copy sent through the list.  Since mailing lists are usually
   delivered to the user's primary mailbox anyway, the objections to
   this practice that appear in netnews typically do not appear with
   Internet mailing lists.

   At andrew.cmu.edu, the original AMS site, the social norms match
   those of netnews, even for local mailing lists.  This is because AMS
   has mechanisms for automatically filing incoming mail.  Many users
   read mailing lists as local bulletin boards, not as personal mail.

   In some cases, the list of recipients of a message may not include an
   address which will eventually deliver to the originator.  User agent
   programs would be well advised to include all three of the "Reply to
   Sender", "Reply to Readers" and "Reply to All" functions.

































Myers                                                           [Page 4]

