From: Brad Templeton (brad@templetons.com)
Date: Mon Oct 02 2000 - 12:39:05 CDT
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 10:59:37AM +0000, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <20000929171423.A30855@main.templetons.com> Brad Templeton <brad@templetons.com> writes:
>
>
> >On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 05:08:45PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >Not really that useful a feature, because they would only have this
> >magic label if they were new conforming software, and new conforming
> >software should not be sending you any e-mail unless you asked for it
> >(which you certainly would not!)
>
> Eh? But what if the user DID ask for it? Or expressed no preference by not
> including MCT at all? Or the user sent it manually regadlesss? In those
> cases, Posted-And-Mailed gives a useful clue.
Sorry, I guess since two were confused, I will point out that the remark
in parens is to Russ.
Anyway, not including MCT is not, in the drafted spec, expressing no
preference. It is expressing the default preference, which is
to be "don't mail me copies."
My point was, since we are planning to specify that these replies come
only when the original poster _explicitly_ asked for them, they should
not be coming as a surprise to that poster, and as such an extra
header is not needed. An in-reply-to which mentions the USENET message-id,
or a newsgroups header would either or both suffice.