Thus spake Michael J Gruber <mjgAmathDarizonaDedu>: > Maybe one could save one click by changing the UI a bit. But the > rationale is: 1 click is enough to get a field of the same type that you > have already. This is very convenient for the case when you add multiple > cc's or multiple bcc's. > For adding a single field of different type the "click overhead" doesn't > matter, for multiple fields it does.
I disagree. If you only want to CC to one person it's very clumsy. I see outlook express has a CC: field there always. BCC: shows up if you select "All Headers" in view. Does not seem any way to add the replyto or newsgroup, which is probably not a great loss. > The most convenient way to add many addresses to whatever fields is > address book anyways. How does that help? > No, this overloads the interface, makes the most common cases (one > header resp. multiple headers of the same type) more cumbersome. ANd, > what about the (common) headers reply-to and followup-to? True. > > Also, giving the field types more descriptive names might be helpful, > > like "Copy To" "Blind Copy To" "Reply Address" > > Arrgh, this is MS think. Do you want to rewrite headers of incoming > messages as well? Yeah - it's probably not worth it. Just a thought. -- aaronl at consultant dot com
