From: Brad Templeton (brad@templetons.com)
Date: Wed Oct 04 2000 - 13:19:14 CDT
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 02:03:23PM +0200, Per Abrahamsen wrote:
> Brad Templeton <brad@templetons.com> writes:
>
> > But again, if we want these CCs, we request them, in which case one
> > presumes we want to read them, right?
>
> I don't see where you are heading.
>
> None of the CC's I receive are requested. Only some of the CC's I
> send are requested. A standard will not change this. I will send a
> CC when I believe a CC might be appreciated, no matter what the
> standard says. Other people will do the same. A standard do not
> stand above trying to be helpful to other people.
Wait a minute, you want to send a CC if the poster says "don't send one"
or you just plan to send them when the poster says nothing but the
spec says to not send one in this case?
If the former, you must be crushed like a bug. :-)
For the latter, I presume you are doing it because you want to call
special attention to the message? (You will, you'll get a nasty note
from me if you do it to me.)
The spec does allow me to put in the explicit declaration to deal with
the likes of you, but you're saying we should add a whole extra header
so that people who
a) Don't express a preference, but
b) Are worried about people who will ignore the spec and mail them
anyway can
c) Get a fancy mail or newsreader that knows to discard one of
the messages if it knows I will see the other.
>
> I read the same message totally different depending on whether it is
> private and public. A lot of other people feel the same way.
I don't mind putting stuff in the e-mail. It's stuff in
the news, more headers in news for everybody to understand and deal with
that I object to.
However, why not just use the comments of the in-reply-to header?
Seems the natural place. Or throw in a "References:" header if you are
adding things to mail anyway.