Subject: RE: Small request...
From: [email-masked] (Jimen Ching)

15 Apr 1998 00:55:14 -0700
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>

On Wednesday, April 08, 1998 10:02 AM, Guy Gascoigne - Piggford 
[SMTP:[email-masked]] wrote:
> Could we NOT do this.  The answer to simpler filtering is use a mailer that
> can filter correctly, not bung up the subject lines with stuff that can be
> deduced from other header fields.  Any combination of Sender, To or CC
> containing gnu-win32 should do the job.

I see many people opposing these requests, but I have yet to see a good
reason why it shouldn't be done.  Just because there are alternatives doesn't
mean it is a bad idea.  Second of all, filtering on 'Sender', 'To' and/or
'CC' doesn't always work because some people use aliases for the mailing
list address.  If you filter [email-masked], you will miss these
messages.  Adding a keyword in the subject line in all messages distributed
by the mailing list will guarantee that the filter will trap it.

Why is it bad to 'bung up' the subject line?  What's so special about a
subject line that you shouldn't 'bung it up'?

--jc

-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".