Hi Scott, You presume that the contributors will take the time to remember to do that (especially the ones that leave the subject line blank). Would you expect the listserver to bounce back any messages that do not have on of these prefixes? For these reasons, I feel that this type of a suggestion will never work.
To all, For the listsever's split suggestion, it may be impossible to completely sever these areas of interest. For instance, I have seen some threads to start off as, say, EMC oriented and the discussion to wind its way around through safety, regulatory and/or other issues, all the while maintaining the original message's subject line. And, what of the queries that pose multi-discipline questions? I'm not certain, but would these scenarios need further forum splitting or restrictions? And, how far does this splitting or restriction go? I, for one, do have to sort through many emails each day (more on Monday mornings). It takes a little time to read them and discard the ones I have no interest in, which is an investment I choose to make. And maybe that's the point of the original query. But anyway, even with a more focued forum, I am quite sure that weeding through emails will still be needed. BTW, it does pay (1)to broaden one's horizons, no matter how focused we prefer to be, and (2)to keep an open mind. Pardon the philisophical moment, but I have learned more with this open forum than I could have ever learned "trodding down the road" alone. This forum and its administrators have done a marvelous service for all of us that are willing to contribute to these multi-discipline discussions. And, hats off to the contributors who are top-notch professionals who take the time to post their opinions, clarifications, assistance and thought-provoking queries. Let's keep these open discussions coming. With this being said and being a multi-disciplined compliance type, I must give a rousing "YES" to keep this EMC-PSTC forum intact. After all, keeping this an open forum is better for me and better for my employer. Best regards, Ron Pickard [email protected] "Scott Douglas" To: "EMC-PSTC (E-mail)" <[email protected]> <s_douglas@ec cc: rm.com> Subject: ADM Proposed Subject Leaders Sent by: owner-emc-pst [email protected] 03/13/00 06:33 AM Please respond to "Scott Douglas" Hi All, Good discussion about splitting the list. Me, I like it the way it is as I wear all the hats. One good idea I saw was about adding a symbol in the subject line of the message to allow for easy filtering. Here is my proposed list of header symbols. Please feel free to use and/or add to the list. ADM - administrative, listserver information LAS - laser issues SAF - product safety issues, any product EMC - product emissions & immunity, any product. TEL - subjects related to Telecom, modems, etc, but not TREG items Here is a list of proposed modifiers to the above: ITE - information technology equipment specific LAB - laboratory and test equipment specific MACH - machinery, heavy or industrial equipment specific REG - regulations and standards specific Examples of the use: ADM - should we split the list? LAS - laser pointers being abused SAF - What is IEC 65? EMC, ITE - Anyone using EN55024 yet? TEL, REG - Question about Cl. 6.2 You get the idea. Scott [email protected] ECRM Incorporated Tewksbury, MA USA ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: [email protected] Michael Garretson: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: [email protected] Michael Garretson: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected]
