Re: Is RFC5322 a 'protocol'?

On 1/6/2014 11:11 AM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
> Can you elaborate on why you think the Originator fields qualify as
> protocol and other fields (like the paragraph on "Destination Address
> Fields") would not? Assuming for the moment that your 'definition' of
> protocol is correct, I fail to see why Originator fields would qualify
> as 'protocol'.

      3.6.2. Originator Fields
      ...
      The originator fields also provide the information required when
      replying to a message. When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it
    indicates the address(es) to which the author of the message suggests
    that replies be sent.  In the absence of the "Reply-To:" field,
    replies SHOULD by default be sent to the mailbox(es) specified in the
    "From:" field unless otherwise specified by the person composing the
    reply.

That looks like a protocol directive, to me.



> And what is the problem that corresponds to this solution?

Who to send replies to is a long-established issue.  In fact, Reply-to 
was probably the most innovative part of RFC 733.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
ietf-822 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822