Re: [cobalt-users] reply format WAS (no subject)

["Mark Baker - Cobalt Lists" <cobalt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Is all you lot argue over whether someone's e-mail has a subject or how they
search the archives????

I agree with the "always have a subject" rule... but searching e.t.c. is
childish!

Grow up all of you!

Regards,

Mark Baker
Dark Marketing Ltd
http://www.yoursitehere.co.uk

Reply e-mail: mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
----- Original Message -----
From: Kris Dahl <krislists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: [cobalt-users] reply format WAS (no subject)


> on 8/28/00 8:20 AM, Joe Quinn at joe@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > I prefer it the way you have it, if people are following a thread, they
> > should already a grasp of the problem.
>
> It is actually considered common list/newsgroup protocal to quote after
the
> context. This is largely because interspersed comments are the de facto
> norm, and are 100% incompatible with people posting before the context.
>
> But actually what I really wanted to say is that all y'all's lame because
> you have been continuing this thread with Netscape's (no subject)
lameness.
> So whoever started this thread originally with (no subject) as the subject
> should be taken out back and beaten, because they honestly don't have a
> clue.  I think it should be rule that all messages sent to Cobalt's
mailman
> that have either '(no subject)' or '<no subject>' or '' as the subject
piped
> to /dev/null at the server.  Whatever is in that message is going to be
> pretty much worthless as far as I am concerned.
>
> -k
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cobalt-users mailing list
> cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To Subscribe or Unsubscribe, please go to:
> http://list.cobalt.com/mailman/listinfo/cobalt-users