It would be great if everybody could decide that on his/her own, but if it's not possible to implement that, i vote #2 :)
Thursday, August 21, 2003, 7:43:02 PM, you wrote: CC> Hey folks, CC> ALL LIST MEMBERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO RESPOND AND MAKE A CHOICE AS TO HOW CC> THEY WANT THIS BASIC FUNCTION OF THE LIST TO CONTINUE OPERATING. CC> The subject header is going to change. CC> This is a survey to see whether people want: CC> 1. To have no subject prefix, that is, we remove [Full-Disclosure] CC> or CC> 2. To shorten the subject prefix from [Full-Disclosure] to [FD] CC> or CC> 3. Do nothing CC> 1. The first choice is preferable for me and, I would hope, for most folks. CC> Len says he didn't really want it when he started the list anyways. So we are CC> actually going to change it now. CC> 2. Choice two may be preferable for people who can only filter their incoming CC> messages based on the subject prefix. So, if you WANT there to continue CC> to be a subject prefix, SPEAK UP!!! CC> 3. Choice three sucks and if anyone wants this SPEAK UP so we know just CC> how many people want this. This is the least preferrable as it clutters CC> the Subject header and makes the list harder to read through for those of us CC> using a text based e-mail client. CC> For those of you using procmail or a compatible filter, a good match CC> for Full-Disclosure that relies on headers you will always see in CC> list messages goes like this: CC> :0: CC> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC> full-disclosure CC> That matches this header: CC> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC> Alternately, you can tell your Pegasus/Mozilla/Outlook/OE/Whatever CC> to match on this header. -- Best regards, Bernhard mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
