Date:	Tue, 9 May 95 17:31 GMT
From:	"Kevin Ashley, Systems Development, ULCC" <CZIWKGA AT VMSFE DOT ULCC DOT AC DOT UK>
To:	P DOT TAYLOR AT VMS DOT RHBNC DOT AC DOT UK, DJGPP <DJGPP AT SUN DOT SOE DOT CLARKSON DOT EDU>
Subject:	RE: Header re-writing

Philip Taylor asks if it would be acceptable to cause either
Subject or Reply-to fields to be re-written in order to allow sites
to filter list mail more easily. I think the answer to this is no twice.
Even if it were acceptable, it is unlikely to be possible unless we
find a new home for the list exploder. The software used at Clarkson
is what they use and I don't think they are inclined to change it since
it does what they want it to do. So that's the first no.

I also don't find it acceptable, mainly because I don't think it's necessary.
The To: field in the headers does identify the mail as being for the djgpp
list and many mailers allow you to filter on this. For those that
don't (such as VMS mail, which I use) there are other ways to do the
filtering. VMS mail does allow you to filter on what is in the mail's
envelope header (i.e., the name you used to subscribe to the list)
and I use this by subscribing myself under an alias. Deliberately
munging "Subject:" makes it more difficult to actually see what a message
is about, since most mailers present only a part of the subject field to
you until you read the message. This is particularly annoying AFTER you have
separated and filed the messages in one place, when the extra text is now
wholly redundant.

Filtering on reply-to should not be any more or less difficult than filtering
on To:. I would find changing the Reply-To: field mildly annoying since
my mailer announces new mail as being "from" the Reply-to: address rather
than the From: address. Thus it would be more difficult for me to
apply the second-level filter which discards the messages which I suspect
to be content-free (which is driven almost entirely by the address of the
author. :-) )

Kevin Ashley (K DOT Ashley AT ulcc DOT ac DOT uk)

- Raw text -