Will, et al -- ...and then Will Yardley said... % % David T-G wrote: % > % > 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. % % the difference being that these headers have specific functions, % described in RFCs UNLIKE X-headers, which are intentionally left for % people / machines to use for their own purposes.
Agreed. And the X-Label: header is something of a special case, since mutt recognizes it and does stuff with it. % % > doesn't it make sense to stay away from X-Label: or any other header % > that mutt recognizes by default? % % well for a long time, this was only the case if mutt was patched, and For a long time mutt didn't do lots of things. It does now. What's the point? % it's not in the default $index_format string. Neither are lots of expandos :-) % % i suppose you could make a case for mutt 'recognizing' this by default, % but i don't think it's really fair to criticize anyone else's use of % this field (whereas if someone were adding notes to the 'References' % section, you'd rightly have reason to complain when it broke threading % in your email client). Where was the criticism? I respectfully suggested that he pick something unique instead of overloading another function; what's wrong with that. % % why not simply strip incoming 'X-Label' headers with procmail; this way % no one will interfere with your use of this header? I certainly could do that -- and if he were already using X-Label: and I decided that it would be a cool way to take some notes then I probably would. % % w HAND :-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!
msg23396/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
