From: "Julian and Jackie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If, for example, all genetics posts were marked with :g, then, should I
> only be interested in genetics discussions, I could configure a mailbox
> in my mail reader to only show those messages that had :g at the end of
> the subject line.
>
> On the other hand, they can be used to indicate by eye what the general
> subject area is. So for those people who hate genetics discussions, they
> can simply delete all messages that have :g at the end.
>
Thanks for info. Obviously threadmarkers were thought out well. Some
thoughts follow.
A problem might be that you skillfully use one of the most powerful
emailers, Turnpike. I can do what you say in Outlook Express but I'm not
sure many GML users can. Has that changed over three years?
Eye scan of threadmarkers is helpful only if they aren't dropped at end of
long Subjects; and even then they are unnatural. (You are right about the
Re: intrusion at the front but that seems minor.) I'd rather see
descriptive subjects even if they run on very long.
Someone's suggestion of more descriptive threadmarkers has some merit.
Perhaps there's a compromise between verbose (and error-prone)
threadmarkers and the current terse one-letter codes. A couple more
characters adds a lot of mnemonic value.
It would be great if everyone used threadmarkers, if only to assist busy
experts. I'll try to do that. But threadmarkers won't become permanently
popular until everyone can get personal benefit IMHO.
