Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!TECHNION!AER7101 From: AER7101@TECHNION.BITNET (Zvika Bar-Deroma) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook Subject: Re: BSMTP header Message-ID: <900208.152852.IST.AER7101@TECHNION> Date: 9 Feb 90 04:18:54 GMT Sender: MAIL/MAILBOOK subscription list Reply-To: MAIL/MAILBOOK subscription list Organization: TECHNION - I.I.T, Aerospace Eng. Lines: 28 Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway In-Reply-To: Message of Wed, 7 Feb 90 03:30:57 +0100 from On Wed, 7 Feb 90 03:30:57 +0100 Thomas Habernoll said: > >I would be pretty quiet if a way to manipulate headers were to the >advantage of a small number of experienced users only, and would do >harm to novice users. But this isn't the case here. Regardless of the >grade of experience it violates the rule of least astonishment if >a change of a header line doesn't has the effect one would expect. > I think Thomas has implicitely raised an idea that could solve this business (it must bother lots of us - the discussion on that issue has been going on for a month or more, with a few variations). My suggestion is: Set an option ALTER.HEADER which defaults to NO. No means that one cannot alter the header (never mind now how it is implemented - SETting the header lines as RESERVed, having the header in a second file in the ring or any other idea method which implements this idea. The "experienced" user might set ALTER.HEADER YES in his personal MAILUSER XEDIT file, thus enabeling him to alter the header, with the possible negative "side effects". I'm not talking how to actually implement the idea as there are many who know the MAILBOOK code a lot better than I do, and more important - we first have to agree/convince Richard what the "best" solution (or compromise) is. /Zvika