Evan Read (eread@netaccess.co.nz)
Thu, 8 Apr 1999 09:36:31 +1200
Yup. I second that.
>At least make it "[YDG]" - we can all extrapolate that into
>[yellowdog-general] can't we??
>
>Mike
>----------
>>From: "David A. Brown" <dabnsh@ix.netcom.com>
>>To: ydl <yellowdog-general@lists.yellowdoglinux.com>
>>Subject: [yellowdog-general] Re: Maillist
>>Date: Tue, Apr 6, 1999, 8:39 PM
>>
>
>>>> If this isn't possible (if not, can you really call yourself a Linux
>>>> Company? ;), then perhaps (like this is gonna happen ;), by convention, we
>>>> need to indicate in all our subjects that the message relates to the
>>>> YDLGeneral Mailling list.
>>>I disagree. There's no need to indicate the origination of a message in the
>>>Subject heading - I would rather that was used to describe the content
>>>of the
>>>msg itself.
>>>Surely, you are using a emailer with Rules processing for filtering messages
>>>according to the TCP headers?
>>>
>>>
>> I'm afraid that I'm inclined to agree with Craig... This same subject has
>> been discussed "ad nauseum" on other lists - especially when linuxppc split
>> into numerous segments. Subject space is tight enough without the added
>> noise (and redundant information) of the list name yet again. (I count 3
>> instances in the normal header alone - not including the subject field and
>> the routing info...) Please, let rules/filters handle the movement into
>> folders using the information in the headers.
>>
>> Just my two cents...
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>
-- Evan ReadLinux -- "It's computing, Jim, but not as we know it"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri Apr 30 1999 - 11:30:06 MDT