Thus spake Daniele Muscetta ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [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 is up to Len and the other moderators. We've had one vote already, and since this seems to be a sore point for some folk, why not have another? > > Regardless, it is much easier to filter based on subject line. > > It is indeed easier. > One can of course also filter on headers, but in my situation - for > example - I don't filter at a server level (where i don't have access > myself) but at a client level. As do, I'm sure, a large number of subscribers/posters here. I filter at a client level, yet I *never* filter based on subject. Too risky of hitting a false positive. It's much easier to filter based on Sender: or List-Id: or whatever ezmlm uses, and gives me a little more peace-of-mind. > And often I access my mail in IMAP from a DIFFERENT client (webmail, > anyone?)... and the subject line is very useful in SWIMMING through the > tons of UNFILTERED messages of this one an other lists, and getting to > those OTHER messages quicker.... Exactly why subject line tags are important. I have two places where I read my mail. One is filtered, the other can *not* be filtered. So subject lines are *extremely* handy in the latter case, but I couldn't care less in the former. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html