I too prefer keeping the list as is. >From my point of view, we all have to deal with, at the very least, both EMC & Product Safety (various standards of course) regardless of the products. And I agree too, that having header symbols can be of benefit should someone wish to sort the messages.
John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -----Original Message----- From: Scott Douglas [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 8:33 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: ADM Proposed Subject Leaders 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]
