From: Per Abrahamsen (abraham@dina.kvl.dk)
Date: Wed Oct 04 2000 - 07:01:26 CDT
sommar@algonet.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
> Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes:
> > It can automate the process. The reading agent will be able to mark
> > such messages in a clear way, and the reader will no longer depend on
> > whether the sender was smart enough to indicate that it was a CC in
> > the body of the message.
>
> The smartness of the sender has little to do with.
It has everything to do with it.
> He might be smart enough to conifgure his reader to insert a
> Posted-and-Mailed thing, or might be smart enough to have his reader
> to insert a blurb. My smartness if of the latter kind.
You seem to assume the Posted-and-Mailed header will be optional, with
the default to not include it. I don't want it to be optional, and if
it is, quality agents will make the default on. This way, no
"smartness" will be required by the sender.
> It might be that you only use your mail bodies to send people
> unstructured ramblings, and put the points you make in the header.
Could you please try to state your points without being insulting?
We are not about the information _in_ the message, but the information
_about_ the message. As a part-time newsreader contributer, I want
information _about_ the message to be in a structured header, where I
can extract it and present it in the best form to the reader.
Also, structure in this context means a computer parsable form not
requiring AI techniques, not the kind of structure you find in natural
language texts.
> But I believe most people put information they want other people
> to see in the body.
Well, they rarely duplicate the subject, and I suspect they want other
people to see that. They often duplicate the content of the from
header in the signature, but again, based on my experiences writing a
newsreader I find it very useful to have that information in a
structured form as well.