On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Gre7g Luterman wrote:
> I don't use sender tags, personally. Although they are conceptually
> cool, they are very hard to use.
Actually, I find them very easy to use in conjunction with the X-TMDA
headers. Setting "X-TMDA: sender" saves me the trouble of having to
manually whitelist something if I need a sender address, and I can do it
without having to shell out of pine.
I agree that sender addresses are a pain to use when signing up for
something, but work fine for real people. And they offer a benefit over
keyword addresses in that you don't have to revoke them as often, since
sharing a sender address won't really result in inbox spam, whereas a
keyword address gets a free pass.
My one (very minor) criticism is that the name fields are too long. I
occasionally wish -keyword- could be shortened to -kw-, -sdr- for sender
and so forth, just so that addresses could fit on a single line, or fit
inside a short web field, but I'm not sure that the loss of readability
would be worth it. It's always either a cosmetic thing, or limiting
assumptions on the part of some web application designer.
Anyway, just in case someone was thinking of removing sender addresses,
please don't. I don't use them often, but I use them when I can, and I'm
glad they're part of the feature set. And the X-TMDA field was a brilliant
idea! :)
--
Guvf gntyvar jnf rapbqrq jvgu gur ebg13.fu fpevcg, ninvynoyr ng
uggc://jjj.pbqrtabzr.bet/fpevcgvat/fubjfpevcg.cuc?fpevcg=ebg13.fu be
sebz n furyy-fpevcgvat nepuvir arne lbh!
- ROT-13 Encoded Message
_____________________________________________
tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
