On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:31:31AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 10:12:58AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > > > I'm sure it's possible, but I think encouraging that broken > > > non-standard header is a bad idea. It is not that hard for > > > people to control their mail clients correctly IMO. > > > > You say "broken header" without explaining why, as if this is common > > knowledge, but I've never heard of any problems with it; you're the > > only person I've ever heard call it "broken". > > [...] > > Haven't you ever considered a "MFT: dev-null" or worse? > > > It's currently the only common way for a sender to express his preference: > > Nonsense. Ask explicitly in the body. Don't hide it in the header.
Problem with that is that the person needing the CC will not get all messages in the rest of the thread. Only on direct replies this request will be preserved, after that the request could be easily stipped by accident. Machines are much better at remembering these things and writing them down every time. This leads to a header imho, whether that be MFT or some other sort of "public-reply-to" I'm not fussed, but MFT seems like the closest we get currently. Regards Floris -- Debian GNU/Linux -- The Power of Freedom www.debian.org | www.gnu.org | www.kernel.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
