On Thu, 22 Mar 2001 04:16:17 +0000, Michael Everson wrote:
> Please, your effulgence, don't. It is entirely redundant.
> "unicode@unicode.org" defines this perfectly adequately. The
> "[unicode]" subject just makes it harder to find things
Heartily seconded. Thirded, whatever. All half-decent mail clients can
filter perfectly well on header fields other than Subject:
Also,
| Sender: unicode-bounce@unicode.org
is totally incorrect according to RFCs and standard usage (should be
the list address). One assumes that it is intended to avoid bounces
being distributed to the list, though bounces from (almost?) all MTAs
will be sent to the address in the Errors-to: header (correctly
defined for this list) rather than Sender: or Reply-to:
While I'm at it, let me add another plea in favour of setting the
Reply-to: header to point back to the list [*only on messages which
lack this header*, allowing those who wish to receive personal replies
to set the header accordingly].
And if the list software allows it, how about adding the various
List-* headers defined by RFC 2369 ...
John.
-- -- Over 1500 webcams from ski resorts around the world - http://www.snoweye.com/ -- Translate your technical documents and web pages - http://www.tradoc.fr/en/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:17:14 EDT