My vote is for number two, to shorten to HD or to have nothing at all... Are two votes allowed???
Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Chris Cappuccio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 11:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Full-Disclosure] Subject prefix changing! READ THIS! SURVEY!! Hey folks, 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. The subject header is going to change. This is a survey to see whether people want: 1. To have no subject prefix, that is, we remove [Full-Disclosure] or 2. To shorten the subject prefix from [Full-Disclosure] to [FD] or 3. Do nothing 1. The first choice is preferable for me and, I would hope, for most folks. Len says he didn't really want it when he started the list anyways. So we are actually going to change it now. 2. Choice two may be preferable for people who can only filter their incoming messages based on the subject prefix. So, if you WANT there to continue to be a subject prefix, SPEAK UP!!! 3. Choice three sucks and if anyone wants this SPEAK UP so we know just how many people want this. This is the least preferrable as it clutters the Subject header and makes the list harder to read through for those of us using a text based e-mail client. For those of you using procmail or a compatible filter, a good match for Full-Disclosure that relies on headers you will always see in list messages goes like this: :0: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] full-disclosure That matches this header: Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alternately, you can tell your Pegasus/Mozilla/Outlook/OE/Whatever to match on this header. -- Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementiae fuit -- Seneca _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
