On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 02:11:45PM -0700, Geoff Dyment wrote:
> Ok, start in your little Anti-MS rant if that makes you happy. I'll help -
> Down with Bill, M$ is evil, Unix p0wns you, Sendmail forever!, blah blah
> blah. K, done?

What anti-MS rant?  I merely pointed out that "older" was an
in-appropriate adjective in this case.  BTW, I run postfix because it's
easier.  Sendmail is older.  Sendmail has more features.  I simply don't
need those extra features.
 
> Exchange works for our little office and we can't justify upgrading (which
> is why I went with free linux/free spamassassin front end). If there's a way
> to add the tag myself with postfix/spamassassin - great, I'll do it, I just
> have never heard such unjustified hatred for the Subject tags before. 

My justifications are at least as valid as yours.  My mail client
of choice is text based.  I get approximately 40 subject characters
displayed in the index.  Sometimes that isn't enough to let me know if I
need to read the message or not.  Subject tags greatly reduce my ability
to scan the index and prioritize my reading of e-mail.

I wish you Microsoft people would think about someone other than
yourselves once in a while.  Isn't that the inverse of what you are 
saying?

You could use a content filter.  But, it'll be a pain in the ass setting
it up for each list.  Probably not too bad for any individual list.

It's easier to filter to folders bases on the existing header
information.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 1:49 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Subject Tag
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 01:36:04PM -0700, Geoff Dyment wrote:
> > If you want to be elitist and punish people with older software just so
> you
> 
> "older software"?  You mean older than procmail?
> 
> HISTORY:
>           Only the last entry is complete, the others might have been
> condensed.
> 
> 1990/12/07: v1.00
> 1990/12/12: v1.01
> 1991/02/04: v1.02
> 1991/02/13: v1.10
> 1991/02/21: v1.20
> 
> Maybe you meant feature poor?
> 
> -- 
> Scott Lambert                    KC5MLE                       Unix SysAdmin
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]      

-- 
Scott Lambert                    KC5MLE                       Unix SysAdmin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]      

Reply via email to