| Summary | Consider implementing privicons |
| Queue | IMP |
| Queue Version | Git master |
| Type | Enhancement |
| State | Rejected |
| Priority | 1. Low |
| Owners | |
| Requester | jan (at) horde (dot) org |
| Created | 07/27/2010 (5459 days ago) |
| Due | |
| Updated | 11/13/2013 (4254 days ago) |
| Assigned | |
| Resolved | 11/13/2013 (4254 days ago) |
| Milestone | |
| Patch | No |
State ⇒ Rejected
Doesn't appear to be a whole bunch of momentum behind this, but
implementing would be straightforward, at least with respect to adding
the privicon information in a Header (Section 2.4 of the RFC draft).
On the other hand, putting privicon information in the message subject
and/or body is just stupid, annoying, and confusing as hell.
Especially on a MUA that doesn't support privicons - the ASCII text
icons mean absolutely nothing.
Priority ⇒ 1. Low
Patch ⇒ No
Milestone ⇒
Queue ⇒ IMP
Summary ⇒ Consider implementing privicons
Type ⇒ Enhancement
State ⇒ Accepted