Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Wed, 13 Aug 1997 15:16:19 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Stefan:
>In fact this silly behavior makes archive cleaning impossible, since if
>you, Peter, are shortening parts of the cited message, you might throw
>away parts, the replying person thought to be important to be copied.
>Since he/she copied a l l one will never know.
This is a definite possibility though I do in most cases make an effort to
read the whole message - quotes and all - and probably not much is lost
except for my time.
>I have some problem here with the subject lines. My mail program
>doesn't allow me long subject lines. It limits them to 60 characters.
>So I might be in trouble, if there is a subject, like
>"Finding out about human health by history studies"
>and I want to continue with "Paleolithic studies in comparison (was:
>Finding out about human health by history studies)"
I think this is the case for many of us, and I always make an effort not to
make them too long. The one above I would shorten to: Paleolithic studies
(was: Finding out about human health) = 57 characters.
>This obviously would be too long and cut by my mail program.
>I will help myself with ... then:
>"Paleolithic studies in comparison (was: Finding out about..."
>Accepted?
There are many ways to skin a cat. Looks good to me. :-)
>Should we make a guideline, that forbids replying to such a subject
>line with "Re: Paleolithic studies in comparison (was: Finding out about..."
>and instead one would have to use: "Re: Paleolithic studies in comparison"
>thereby omitting the "was..." part? (It suffices for thread following
>when the "was... " appears once).
I used to do this myself but now I have stopped because
"Re: Paleolithic studies in comparison (was: Finding out about..."
and
"Re: Paleolithic studies in comparison"
would be grouped as two different threads in the archives. But I agree that
the part "(was: Finding out about...)" is redundant after the first time.
However, I am not really happy with either option and would wish that there
was a third. Ideas anyone?
Thanks for the valuable feedback!
Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|