On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 07:15:11PM +0300, Maxim Tarasov wrote: > First, "Re: your mail" sounds like a spam mail heading and doesn't > convey any useful information.
True enough, but, the fault is with the original sender for not providing a meaningful subject, and if they don't want to receive responses that look like spam they should...not do that. > Second, setting the subject to just "Re:" will enable the user to > immediately fill in the rest according to the contents of their email > if they want to. Otherwise "Re:" should be enough to signify that this > is a reply to an email with an empty subject line. TBH I never liked "Re: your mail" but leaving it empty seems no better to me. Most people probably will be inclined to ignore it (if they even notice). I think some other mailers default to something like "Re: (no subject)" which seems more suitable to me. It avoids perpetuating the blank subject and indicates to the original sender that they failed to provide a meaningful subject. I think you could argue it's no less spammy than the other two options, but let's be honest: If the sender didn't provide a meaningful subject, you're not going to fix that other than manually. > It might be tempting to extract this part into a configuration > variable, but I doubt anyone would really welcome the opportunity to > invent some generic "Re: ..." subject. Why? This is Mutt. =8^) TBH I don't feel very strongly about this, but I don't think leaving it blank is better, and I do think that if we're going to bother to change it, we should change it to something that is better. And my guess is what people will find more acceptable is purely a matter of taste and the rules of etiquette in their local culture. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
