"Mikkel L. Ellertson" wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Vidiot wrote:
> > And for this reason the list appears to have voted down the [RHL] being
> > added to the subject line? Logic defies me. We want better subject lines,
> > but we don't want help with the subject line.
> >
> > I'd love to have [RHL] as part of the subject line. So, even if the user
> > says nothing, or provide nothing to help, at least you'll know it is from
> > the list.
> >
> > But, I guess it is not to be :-(
> >
> > MB
> >
> Adding [RHL] to the subject isn't the answer - though it would help show
> where the message comes from. I guess it would make it easy to delete all
> the ones that are just [RHL] with no other subject, or [RHL] HELP, but it
> doesn't realy address the basic problem. And it does cause other
> problems, as was pointed out before.
>
> Mikkel
> --
I can, and do use procmail to move emails from the various lists I subscribe to
to the correct folder. That is easy. What I can;t imagine doing (well I can
image it I guess, just not how) is writing a recipe that will parse the body and
build a useful subject line. I tend to skim very rapidly the un-helpful
subjected (?) messages. I simply can't tell if I can be of help or not and
often don't have the time to read a message that may be a total waste of time.
I don't have rpjday's problem but in reality the messages that have informative
subject lines are much more apt to get my attention.
My guess is that the more informative subjects are more apt to get the attention
the author desires. Now obvioulsy this does not hold true for all contributers
to the list but I have found that it is the very occasional situation that finds
me alone in matters like this.
Short version:
Good subject lines are just that, good.
Bret
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
