[Date Prev][Date Next][Subject Prev][Subject Next][
RE: your subject headers and spam/Xywrite: zc=Zero Capitalizatio n
- Subject: RE: your subject headers and spam/Xywrite: zc=Zero Capitalizatio n
- From: "EBERLE, JIM" JEBERLE@xxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:42:18 -0500
I like the idea of an "xywrite" or "xy" tag in the subject line, even though I don't have a filtering problem. I'd like the designation simply to know that the e-mail comes from the list since I can't tell that from the "From" header.
From: cld@xxxxxxxx [mailto:cld@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 4:22 PM
Subject: RE: your subject headers and spam/Xywrite: zc=Zero
Quoting "Ambos, Paul" :
> I see no problem with status quo. And what would upenn add that is any more
> distinctive than the listserve address?
The issue, as I understand it, is that many, or perhaps most, mail clients do
not display the "xywrite@" address in the From: header; they display, instead,
the name and address of the individual poster. As a result, some people can't
establish a filtering rule (e.g., "do not delete" or "move to folder XyWrite")
using the From: header.
The thought was that a "[xywrite]" tag in the Subject: header would enable
filtering under any mail program. Now the Reply-to: header, which also (and, I
believe, invariably,) contains the "xywrite@" address, would also work for this
purpose. But the problem there is that some mailers don't allow for filtering
on the Reply-to: header. Some filtering systems (including some Web mail
systems) limit the choices to, for example, the To:, Cc:, From: and Subject:
headers (in addition to the message body itself).
On the other hand, don't _all_ messages from the list _always_ include the
"xywrite@" address in the To: header? Is there anyone here for whom that is NOT
true? If the To: header is 100% reliable, there would be no need to tinker with
the Subject:, because (surely) every filter can operate on To:.