Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-moore-mail-nr-fields-00.txt]

[Simon Josefsson <jas@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> I'd rather avoid having a definition of Mail-Copies-To in email that 
> differed from the definition used in usenet.

What if it was possible to use the same definition on both email and
usenet?

> I can imagine two ways to solve the problem:
>
> (a) Reply-To with some magic address that is valid syntax but a no-op. 
> maybe this:
>
> Reply-To: nobody :;

This appear to work.

> (b) a new No-Replies-To-Author field
>
> offhand, I'd prefer (a) on the assumption that it is more likely to do
> the right thing with existing MUAs.  it also avoids having one field
> change the meaning of another field.

Right.  And it would be in the same style as the rest of NR.

If nobody can find client behaviors that MFT/MRT can achieve, that NR
together with (a) cannot, especially wrt news (MFT/MRT is used in news
too, IIRC), I'd like to see NR move forward.

Thanks,
Simon