> Who are you to judge which message is or isn't important? The user
> should make the determination as to whether or not the sender is
> credible in their use of this flag. If it's a spammer that's abusing
> it, then Google's spam filters should catch the message before
> reaching a user's inbox anyway, correct?

> In my experience - over 20 years in the private sector with Fortune
> 100 companies - this feature is used sparingly, so as to ensure that
> when a message is marked urgent, it really is urgent.

> Instead of being a judge of what is and what is not useful, Google
> should offer such tools and assess their usefulness. If they work
> well, great, they stay. If they blow, they're gone. It is Gmail *BETA*
> after all.

> On Jun 10, 3:59 pm, JoshuaDPS wrote:

> > On Jun 10, 3:26 pm, CPngN wrote:

> > > Why not?  How ridiculous is this?  Now when someone sends me something
> > > important and flags it, hoping I'll see it ASAP.... I'll see no such
> > > info in the gmail interface.  Oversight?  It's been around in every
> > > email program I've ever used.  Please add this simple but important
> > > (pun?) feature when sending.  For receiving, the ability to filter on
> > > other headers would, once again, solve a major headache with gmail.
> > > Glad I haven't switched to gmail-web permenantly, I'd go insane trying
> > > to filter and categorize things!

> > I agree it would be nice to filter on arbitrary headers.

> > But I don't agree about the general utility of message priority
> > settings. In my (not inconsequential) experience, the presence of a
> > message priority flag is a very good indicator that the incoming
> > message is NOT important. It is so much abused by spammers and other
> > bulk mailers that it is of no use for actually prioritizing mail.