Re: SLUG filtering

[davel@whutt.att.com]

	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.
						--Kanef
						
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