On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 18:35:07, Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
wrote:
here's something new to argue about :)
I'm curious to know what people think of this idea.
While I am a little doubtful about the cost-benefit ratio of this proposal, I
still have a suggestion. :-)
Since the existing To: and CC: fields are treated nearly identically by the
mail system and are basically just used to designate the "primary" and
"secondary" recipients of the message to the human readers, I do not think that
there needs to be yet two more classes of recipients. Instead, I think that a
single "tertiary" recipient class which is intended not to be bothered by
subsequent exchanges can be designated.
Not altogether facitiously, I propose to extend the sensory deprivation
metaphor of Blind Carbon Copy (BCC:) to Deaf Carbon Copy (DCC:) for this
tertiary class since follow-on messages in the conversation will not be "heard"
by them. ;-)
This would not affect the rest of the design in the NR draft except that now
there would only be one new header field for MUAs to extract from, display or
ignore.
--
Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com>