On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 03:55:18PM -0400, Thomas Good wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Marc Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 12:30:27PM -0400, Thomas Good wrote:
> > > Why have we no subject prefix on postings, ala "[Debian Users]"
> > > to use for sorting... ???
> >
> > Because it's (a) intrusive, (b) annoying, and (c) not necessary. Here's a
>
> I don't want to start a holy war...
> But "Intrusive" ? - that may be slightly melodramatic.
>
> The subject prefix is widely used by sites running majordomo.
> One example is PostgreSQL. I've been on several lists there for
> years and never heard anyone complain about the [SQL] subject
> prefix (or any other.) Odd.
Until you find that you don't need it. Then you'll start wondering why
it was on there in the first place.
The first mailing lists I joined were the debian mailing lists. Since
then I've found other mailing lists that *do* the [prefix]-thingie. And
*that* I find annoying, as the X-Mailing-List: header sorts things out
quite nicely.
I would not be surprised if there are tweaks available to Majordomo to
fix its behaviour...
Perhaps it has to do with the (alleged) vast majority of mail clients
out there are decidedly unfriendly when it comes to choosing which
headers to display and use for sorting/filing... <small>Personally I
don't care for that and use procmail...</small>
--
Karl E. Jørgensen
karl@jorgensen.com
www.karl.jorgensen.com
==== Today's fortune:
Windows 98: n.
useless extension to a minor patch release for 32-bit extensions and
a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system
originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit
company that can't stand for 1 bit of competition.
Attachment:
pgpmuUHc1FsDP.pgp
Description: PGP signature