From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Sun Oct 29 2000 - 18:42:49 CST
Erland Sommarskog (sommar@algonet.se):
>> This has nothing to do with the issue. Whether I actually read each header
>> is not relevant.
> It certainly is.
Baloney. It's another "here's a specific case" argument that means
nothing. Whether I read the headers, all of the headers, very slowly and
carefully, for each piece of email or not, the information about how the
message was processed is still there, and is still viewable if I want to
see it.
> You seem to be so obessed with being able to drop a
> few mails on the floor that you are not even understanding want I
> want to achieve with the information. I want the reader to see it.
If the information is in the header, he can see it. Next problem?
To Terje Bless, Erland said:
>To be honest, I don't even understand what you mean by "interoperability"
>if you claim that Posted-and-Mailed MUST be there. Unless you mean
>"I like this header, so everyone else should use it".
It's the same interoperability definition being used by those who don't
want munged From: headers.
>People not sending CC:s with Posted-and-Mailed will cause
>you, John Stanley and a few more to get pissed, but I can't see an
>interoperability problem.
1. It prevents automated processing from taking place, just like a bad
Message-Id does.
2. It makes life less convenient for a few people, just like posting with
a munged From: header does.
Do we use special definitions of interoperability for this header but not
for all?
>But I maintain that even if the receiver's agent suppors the header,
>the information still makes sense in the body, because it by means
>of the body I communicate with him.
You communicate about the topic of the message; issues of how the message
was processed rightly belong in the header.
If your topic of discussion is always "was this message posted and mailed
or just mailed", that's your problem.
>And I find it devastating if Usefor would include Posted-And-Mailed -
>which I preferred that it did not - and did not mention the possibility
>of a blurb. Some newsreader authors may interpret that as blurbs are
>unwanted.
Blurbs are not only unwanted, they are inappropriate for agent insertion.
Like you said, the body of the message is for YOU to communicate with the
recipient, not for your agent to communicate with his agent. Thanks for
proving my point.