Re: problem with ux400

[davel@whutt.att.com]

Robert Kerns says:
>    Date: Fri, 29 Jun 90 10:00 EDT
>    From: davel@whutt.att.com
>I forgot to respond to this point of your message in my earlier reply.
>
>    To resolve the issue of overloading uninterested readers, what say we
>    standardize the subject line, so all bug reports contain a uniform keyword
>    (I suggest "BUG," of course).  If you're not interested, you can delete
>    all messages containing "BUG" in the subject line without reading (perhaps
>    an investment of 2 seconds), although no doubt somebody could write
>    a Zmail hack to do it automatically.
>
>I'm afraid this wouldn't be an adaquate solution.  I couldn't
>deal with the disk space involved.  (I don't always read my mail
>every day).  I doubt Symbolics could deal with the volume of
>mail over dialnet, either.
You are correct. I hadn't been thinking of the Symbolics dialnet costs.
I'd be surprised if adding bug reports more than doubled SLUG's volume,
but Symbolics might object to even that much of an increase.

I don't know why you think gigabytes of bug mail will appear on SLUG
if we open it the bug reports.  Are Symbolics products that buggy? :^)*0.5
>
>Also, a minor point:  I used to have Zmail tools like you describe.
>However, I would never use the particular hammer you describe, for
>fear of losing important mail which happened to "look" like the
>filter you describe.  If you try anything like this, you'll need to
>make it a lot more resistant to deleting of the wrong mail.
>
The various netnews groups seem to handle these things without a great
deal of difficulty.  Simply require "BUG" (or better, "BUG:") to be the
first word in the subject line (or the first word after "Re:").  Seems
to work well enough.

These opinions are shareware.  If you like the product,
please send your $0.02 to
               David Loewenstern
   {backbone!}att!whutt!davel which is davel@whutt.att.com