At 12:00 PM 2/9/01 -0500, Ryan Williams wrote:
> > Perhaps it would help the two of you. Perhaps you can explain why
> > the rest of us should be inconvenienced because you can't spare the
> > time to learn to use the right tool for the right job? 200 m/day might
> > be a burden for you. For many of us that's a light day. The list
> > messages are already tagged in the Sender: header. Please learn to
> > use it.
>
>Who is to say that we would be the ones inconveniencing others. If everyone
>but you wants this, you would be inconveniencing us to ask that it was not
>done. I was just placing out an idea when I suggested this just to get some
>feed back and to see what other people thought about this. We all know your
>opinion about the matter now how about we hear some other peoples opinions.
Given the variety of machines/platforms/mail user agents I find myself
working from, a subject prefix would be useful. I use filters on my main
workstation, but cannot have them setup everywhere. Mail list subject
prefixes were wonderful when AOL was my main email provider. That may apply
to a number of folks on this list.
Now if we could just get Congress to require a [SPAM] prefix...
Andrew Robinson
************************************************************************
* Andrew W. Robinson | Voice: +1 (504)-889-2784 *
* Computerized Processes Unlimited, Inc. | FAX: +1 (504)-889-2799 *
* 4200 S. I-10 Service Rd., Suite 205 | E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Metairie, LA 70001 | WWW: http://www.cpu.com *
* "Consulting System Integrators" *
************************************************************************
