From: jimen AT adtech-inc DOT com (Jimen Ching) Subject: RE: Small request... 15 Apr 1998 00:55:14 -0700 Message-ID: <01BD67B4.0A57C3A0.jimen.cygnus.gnu-win32@adtech-inc.com> Reply-To: "jimen AT adtech-inc DOT com" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com" On Wednesday, April 08, 1998 10:02 AM, Guy Gascoigne - Piggford [SMTP:ggp AT informix DOT com] 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 gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com, 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 "gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".