car@texas.net,Internet writes:
>NO!!!!
Geez, no need to shout! Calm down, I only asked a question.
>I know some other lists do it that way, and subscribe to two who do so,
>but...I have to wade through 30-80 "no-name" messages to find the ones
>that
>are in response to what I wrote (the subject doesn't always stay the
>same...), or are messages that I am looking for.
I guess it depends on how you use the list and what you're used to.
This is the only list I've ever been on that works this way. For me,
this method is "no name" as I don't know any of you from Adam! But I
can see how someone who uses it more actively would have a more
personal feel for the others on the list.
>The best way to deal with segregating the various lists is to use the
>digests! (Here we go, again, but I hope not. The digests partially
>solved
>the "no-name" problem for me in one case.)
I often try digests, but usually find that I delete the things en-masse
without reading them. But I may try them again.
>Sorry to bog the MG list down with this reply, but...there are some
>serious
>tradeoffs to be considered! If anything I'd rather see the other lists
>that
>use the list name as a header change to individual names.
>I do understand your request, Eddie, but the ramifications would be
>confusing to most of the other users of this list, IMHO! -- In my
>opinion!
>And I'm one of those who "like knowing at first glance who originated a
>message."
My only gripe is as I look down my inbox (which often has 150 messages
per day) I can spot the "personal" messages by their individual address
vs. some list address. I like to know "Is this for me, or for a bunch
of people?" But I can see how for some the other list members are
"personal" and if I hang around long enough, maybe I will too.
But as I said in my first post, if others don't like it, no big deal.
It was just a thought, and I was just wondering. Let's don't start any
flames over it! :-)
I withdraw the question. Let's get back to LBCs!
Eddie
67 Midget (in pieces!)
|