[cc] RE: OT/Admin: tags

From: Frank McConnell <fmc_at_reanimators.org>
Date: Tue Feb 4 16:29:01 2003

"Fred N. van Kempen" <Fred.van.Kempen_at_microwalt.nl> wrote:
> See how fucked-up that comment is? Right. Same goes for another comment
> stating that "every decent mail client can do processing". It's simply
> not true. Like my statement above. People use all sorts of clients, and
> they all have different capabilities.

If your mail software doesn't do what you need it to do, maybe you
need to complain to whoever sells and supports it, or find other mail
software that does do what you need done. Asking the rest of the net
to change so that you can keep using losing software is not nice.

> I still vote for a small [cc] tag. In front of the subject.

Here's how that works out here: I set up my mail software to strip the
tag so I don't have to see it. (Clearly, my mail software wins: it
doesn't just do what I need, but also what I want.) Then, when I
reply to the list, my reply's subject does not have the tag. So
messages in the thread can have at least three different subjects:
  [cc] foo
  Re: [cc] foo
  [cc] Re: foo

I'd bet that there's a fourth possibility based on phase of the moon:
  [cc] Re: [cc] foo

Do you begin to understand why I think subject tags are not a good
idea?

> > Just accept it already and SHUT UP!
> No.

Yep, that's the problem. The way your message came across out here
in Sillycon Valley was: "I know we've been over this before, so there's
no need to discuss it, just vote to do this and then us folks who cling
to our losing software will stop bringing it up." This is not the way
to win friends and influence people, not that there's much hope of
influencing me on this point.

-Frank McConnell, filtering his incoming e-mail since 1994
Received on Tue Feb 04 2003 - 16:29:01 GMT