On 25 Oct 2000, at 7:53, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> At 10:23 AM -0400 10/25/00, Jim Trigg wrote:
> >
> >That's true. The problem is that you seem to be advocating making
> >the new feature the *only* way to identify the list that the message
> >came by.
>
> no, not only. Perhaps official is the better term.
>
> Of course, if you have a better way of doing it, we're all ears...
Perhaps you need to remind me/us of what "it" is. If I remember right
[it was a lot of email ago], the only reasons offered for this "feature"
[sic] were: 1) making it easier to trace errors
2) give incompetent users a better warm-fuzzy feeling about
their email being "personalized".
Downsides (at least the ones I saw right off):
hard to tell if the email really *WAS* addressed to you or not or if
it was list-originated
harder to reply to the list (if you can correctly guess which one
originated the message) [or do the MLMs that do this sort of thing
also mung the reply-to?]
So, while I await to be eddicated about all the other problems this
scheme is intended to help, how about:
1) is done at least as well, if not better, by VERP
2) if you want to personalize, why not personalize the BODY... the
headers are what I see when I scan my mailbox and what I filter
on, and so, IMO, so space there is precious. So if you *HAVE*
to "personalize", why not change the *body* of the message. You
could have it say something like:
Dear Chuq. Here's your latest issue of the hockey-lovers digest
we hope you enjoy it as much as the previous digests...
[rest of message]
... and it'll all feel SO friendly and personal.. :o)
I must be missing something really useful important, because those are
_surely_ not the real reasons for what I see as a basically bogus change.
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--
