BLU Discuss list archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[BLU/Discuss] Are We Back?

Subject: [BLU/Discuss] Are We Back?
From: dsr at tao.merseine.nu (dsr at tao.merseine.nu)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:55:03 -0500
In-reply-to: <1164836822.18564.32.camel@localhost>
References: <20061129094849.A22138@borg.org> <456D9F63.4010509@napc.com> <1164816068.19343.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061129202032.GA20416@reddog.kinz.org> <1164836822.18564.32.camel@localhost>

On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 04:47:02PM -0500, Cole Tuininga wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 15:20 -0500, Jeff Kinz wrote:
> > Can we go back to the original subject line format that doesn't take up
> > space with the redundant List-ID label? 
> 
> Seconded.


thirded. 

The usual reason is "it makes it easier to distinguish in my
inbox", but that's not a good reason. People should be
filtering, and it's no kindness to give them an extra crutch.

-dsr-

-- 
.- .... -..- .-.  --. ..- .-.  --- -. --- .-..  - -. .-.. 
.--- ..- -. -.-- .-. ..-.  ... -... .  .-- .-. ..-. .... ..-.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Follow-Ups:
- [BLU/Discuss] Are We Back?
  - From: greg.rundlett at gmail.com (Greg Rundlett)

References:
- [BLU/Discuss] Are We Back?
  - From: kentborg at borg.org (Kent Borg)
- [BLU/Discuss] Are We Back?
  - From: gmongardi at napc.com (Grant M.)
- [BLU/Discuss] Are We Back?
  - From: john.abreau at zuken.com (John Abreau)
- [BLU/Discuss] Are We Back?
  - From: jkinz at kinz.org (Jeff Kinz)
- [BLU/Discuss] Are We Back?
  - From: colet at code-energy.com (Cole Tuininga)

Prev by Date: [BLU/Discuss] Are We Back?
Next by Date: test to see if my resubscription took
Previous by thread: [BLU/Discuss] Are We Back?
Next by thread: [BLU/Discuss] Are We Back?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread


BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Boston Linux & Unix / webmaster@blu.org