[yellowdog-general] Re: Maillist

Mike Engelhart (aengelhart@austin.rr.com)
Wed, 07 Apr 1999 06:57:56 -0500

At least make it "[YDG]" - we can all extrapolate that into
[yellowdog-general] can't we??

>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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri Apr 30 1999 - 11:30:05 MDT