Re: [Full-Disclosure] Subject prefix changing! READ THIS! SURVEY!!

[Mathieu <mathieu@gougle.net>]

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:15:07AM -0400, Damian Gerow wrote:
> Thus spake Daniele Muscetta (daniele@muscetta.com) [22/08/03 10:59]:
> > >> ALL LIST MEMBERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO RESPOND AND MAKE A CHOICE
> > >> AS TO HOW THEY WANT THIS BASIC FUNCTION OF THE LIST TO
> > >> CONTINUE OPERATING.
> > 
> > > [FD] would be fine.
> > 
> > If it has to be short for those who use text based MUA, at least leave
> > this short one. It should not be such a deal to pass from extra 18 chars
> > in the subject to just 5, should it?
> 
> I used a text-based MUA.  And I find that I get a few words of the subject,
> after I see '[Full-Disclosure]'.
> 
> Personally, I /like/ subject tags, but short ones.  So something like [fd]
> or [fud] would be fine with me.  But I think that the bulk of this decision
     ^^^^^ i don't think it's a _really_ good idea to tag the subject like
that :)

> [...]


imho, i think [FD] Tag is really nice... i do procmail filtering on the
List-Id criteria ...  

- 
--
Mathieu <mathieu@gougle.net>

BOFH excuse #137:

User was distributing pornography on server; system seized by FBI.

PGP signature