On Friday, September 03, 2004 9:20 AM,
Matthew(_dot_)van(_dot_)Eerde(_at_)hbinc(_dot_)com
wrote:
wayne wrote:
In
<16695(_dot_)45036(_dot_)160556(_dot_)552577(_at_)giles(_dot_)gnomon(_dot_)org(_dot_)uk>
Roy Badami
<roy(_at_)gnomon(_dot_)org(_dot_)uk> writes:
MAIL FROM:<foo(_at_)bar> PRA=<baz(_at_)qux>
is far more natural than the SUBMITTER alternative.
So, I think we can count at least four people who would like to see
SUBMITTER= renamed to PRA=.
I respectfully disagree. Acronyms are harder to understand
than fully-spelled-out names. A search on AcronymFinder for
PRA returned 41 results:
Paint Research Association (UK)
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Parabolic Reflector Antenna
Parti pour le Renouveau Algerien
Participatory Rural Appraisal
How about spelling PRA out rather than using the acronym?
Matthew(_dot_)van(_dot_)Eerde(_at_)hbinc(_dot_)com
805.964.4554 x902
Hispanic Business Inc./HireDiversity.com Software Engineer
perl -e"map{y/a-z/l-za-k/;print}shift" "Jjhi pcdiwtg Ptga wprztg,"
Actually, I prefer the name SUBMITTER and would like to stick with it.
I believe that, from the sender's perspective, the name accurately
conveys what the parameter means. It is only on the receiving side that
the value becomes "purported."