[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SLUG filtering

	Date: Mon, 2 Jul 90 17:06 PDT
	From: Bob Kanefsky <Kanef@CHARON.arc.nasa.gov>
	Subject: SLUG filtering
	To: davel@whutt.att.com

	    Date: Mon, 2 Jul 90 13:49 EDT
	    From: davel@whutt.att.com
	  * Subject: Re: problem with ux400
	    Robert Kerns says: [...]
	    >Respond, nothing, I'm talking about even *READING*. [...]
	    I thought that's what subject lines are for.  If the subject doesn't
	    interest you, you delete the message without reading it.
	* Not everyone is careful to keep the subject line up to date with the
	  direction that the conversation has taken.
Point taken.   But I'd be more careful about such things if we had a
policy.  At this point, the subject lines are only useful for 
signalling message threads, and not for describing message content.

Is there any objection to the alternate proposal: that Symbolics 
(through dialnet) support a second SLUG newsletter, devoted to bugs and 
their fixes? 

I have one: not everyone is careful to reroute the article to the
appropriate list when the topic of conversation changes...

But I still don't think the solution is simply not to discuss bugs.

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