Will, et al -- ...and then Will Yardley said... % % Andreas Herceg wrote: % > % > OK, I did not know that X-Label is that common. Now I thought of just % > defining 'X-Coprija: coprija'. % > % > Now I would like to know if this would be against some standard which I % > do not know. % % my understanding is that X headers are pretty much up for grabs.
Yep. % % i say if someone's going to be retarded about you using 'X-Label', screw % 'em. it's their problem, not yours (and they can easily edit your % message in mutt and remove the offending header, or they can strip it % out with procmail if it really bothers them that much). Sure. One could say the same thing about just about any header. Maybe I'd want to use the References: header for notes about where I did my research on this particular email. Then there's always the Message-ID: games you can play, too. I might even poke at Importance: to remind myself of what I was thinking when I sent the note or for my internal todo list tracking system. Who cares what it looks like to someone else? But since he's coming up with a header for a function useful only to him, wouldn't it make more sense for him to define a header of his own rather than one that other recipients would notice? And, if so, then since he uses mutt and it can be assumed that others with which he communicates might also, doesn't it make sense to stay away from X-Label: or any other header that mutt recognizes by default? % % but that's just my $0.02 Here's my twenty millibucks to call :-) % % w :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/ Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
msg23383/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
