From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Mon Oct 23 2000 - 18:55:58 CDT
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel@acm.org):
> Requiring you to use ...
is not the same as implying.
Erland Sommarskog (sommar@algonet.se):
> I don't doubt that you read every header in the mail you get, slowly
> and clearly, not to make sure to miss any information.
This has nothing to do with the issue. Whether I actually read each header
is not relevant. The problem you have is that you think that putting data
in a header is hiding it somehow. It isn't. There is no "wood".
> OK, so we are to remove attributions, quoting style and signature from
> Usefor as well?
When has Usefor said that any of those must be put in a message?
> we should of course mention the possibility to include a blurb.
People who write their messages can put whatever they want in them. I've
already told you to knock yourself out if you want to. Telling agent
authors that they should be putting this irrelevant text in the body when
it belongs in the header is wrong.
> Not the least, because the blurb is far more useful than the header.
Baloney.
> Well, he had the problem - I gave him the answer. I'm not sending off
> CC:s, if I don't think I'm not doing him a service.
Everyone who sends a CC thinks they are being helpful, usually. So what?
It still isn't your decision to force on someone.
> The point is that you fail to see that this piece of information can
> serve other purposes that permitting you drop mails on the floor.
It serves no purpose in the body that it cannot achieve in the header.
> And for those purposes, the header is virtually useless.
Baloney. You're back at the "I can't see the header" nonsense limited to
broken agents.