From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 10:40:14 +0100
From: Steve_Kilbane@cegelecproj.co.uk Steve_Kilbane@cegelecproj.co.uk
Subject: [9fans]
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 692084ee-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025
Message-ID: <19971017094014.lAt00qG7_6EnSnPJOMVZF0w_O4-ecw0sCCu_wI2_ph4@z>

> I also enjoy the X-Face header line you
> use, but I can imagine objections to that too.

Boyd might not get complaints, but I certainly get them
about my X-Face header. Mind you, they're usually verbal,
and from the same person who has a remarkably short memory. :-)

Plus, some people have assumed that the X-Faces header is just
corrupted data, or have confused it with the gumph that some
over-enthusiastic MIME mailers insist on chucking in (M$ Exchange,
I'm talking to *you*).

wrt "[9fans]", it's an interesting issue. Ok, so many can't change
their broken mailers, but I've generally assumed that most of the
readers on this particular list are in a better position to affect
or fix their environment. This is a false assumption, as shown by
jim's comment on unix support and news/mail access earlier this
week. Boyd: I imagine that it wouldn't be hard for you to strip
out the "[9fans]" with procmail or similar. I can also imagine that
given your correct headers, you probably get a lot of spam, and this
is just the final straw on email hassle. :-)

Personally, I don't care either way. I imagine the Reply-To is far
more contentious (and don't care either way on that, either; there
are cases when I want both settings).