On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 16:16, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > You haven't posted any reasons why you think it's poorly thought out or > a crude hack. Because it's essentially the same thing as Reply-To; see a previous email I sent. It's also not properly standardized; see below. > As to being standard, things don't go from ideas to > standards overnight; M-F-T is in between. Great. Why is djb asking for it to be implemented before it's not even formally defined? > > Debatably useful to mailers that understand it (i.e., yours), and > > utterly useless to everything else. If you want to 'indicate exactly' > > what you 'want to be done with followups' to your message, use Reply-To. > > No, that says how to reply, not how to follow-up. The difference has > been well known in Usenet news for 20 years I expect. Then why do most MUAs pay attention to Reply-To even when performing a followup? > You could survey how many of Debian's MUAs support it. BTW, I am sure > that there are many more Mutt users than Evolution (probably orders of > magnitude more), making you the minority. And Microsoft Windows supports extensions to Kerberos. Does that make these extensions any more interoperable? Alex. -- PGP Public Key: http://aoi.dyndns.org/~alex/pgp-public-key -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS d- s:++ a18 C++(++++)>$ UL+++(++++) P--- L+++>++++ E---- W+(+++) N- o-- K+ w--- !O M(+) V-- PS+++ PE-- Y+ PGP+(+++) t* 5-- X-- R tv b- DI D+++ G e h! !r y ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part