Re: request for help

[Brian Stafford <brian stafford uklinux net>]

On Tue, 21 August 09:58 Carlos Morgado wrote:
> 
> On 2001.08.20 20:07:58 +0100 christophe barbe wrote:
> > I've attached to this mail a patch which is supposed to add an option in
> > the preferences dialogbox.
> > This option, ignore the badly choosen name (I'm going to find a better
> > one), ask for a program to set the X_Operating-System field in outgoing
> > mail and offer a preview.
> > This is something that is available with MUTT and I like that because it's
> > a way to advertise your favorite OS.
> 
> Actually, iirc, mutt lets you specify headers to your hearts desire. Maybe 
> this would be a neat thing to have ?

Mail headers are more for processing by the MUA rather than for human
consumption.  Arbitrary headers, IMO, are a Bad Thing.  At best they add
little if no value at all.  If present at all, they should be used in moderation
and always start with "X-".

If information placed in headers is intended for human use, it is better off
in the message body, not the headers.  (M$ Outlook* goes out of its way to stop
users seeing the headers; most punters dont even know they exist.)

I feel effort would be better directed at implementing better support for
headers that exist.  Eg the List-* headers described in RFC 2369.  Using the
List-Post: header when replying to messages from lists would be dead useful
and certainly better than trying to guess what to do from the From:, Sender:
and Reply-To: headers.

Brian