Drew Raines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > For the record, I would've mentioned it if I thought I hadn't > previously reached my obnoxiously-anal-e-mail-aesthetics quota.
Not at all. I'm amenable to such requests since I share your affliction (to an arguably lesser degree <wink>). > It's the reason you never see Reply-To:'s on my messages. :-) Ah. Well, there are a few reasons why I'll probably switch to using a dated Reply-To/envelope with a bare From. First, many archiving services like groups.google.com index based on the e-mail address in your From header. With a one-time From, you prevent any history from being established. Next, it's less intimidating I think for those reading your messages. They won't be aware of the dated address until they actually hit "Reply". I've gotten the comment before that my address made me "look like a spammer". Perhaps some even think the address is bogus when finding it in a web-archive or search engine, I'm not sure. It also makes for a more reasonable attribution line when others follow-up to your posts. e.g, Drew Raines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: That's already pretty darn long, and you have a short base e-mail address. Some MUAs include even more crap in the attribution line like the date and time, which could make it span multiple lines. Lastly, I have a hunch that it will reduce the number of harvested dated addresses. I think From addresses are harvested much more aggressively than those in Reply-To, though I have no hard evidence of this yet. In any case, it will make for a nice social experiment to see how the change in behavior affects interaction with my TMDA. TMDA is also a research project for me in addition to a practical piece of software. _________________________________________________ tmda-workers mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
