On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 08:41:53AM +0900, Dan Zwell wrote:
> Devi Web Development wrote:
> >I don't know who would make this sort of decision, but could we put
> >[RubyTalk] or [Ruby] or something at the beginning of all messages? It's a
> >fairly common practice on listserves.
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------------
> >Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney
> >Devi Web Development
> >Devi.WebMaster / gMail.com
> >
> 
> Quoting http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/docs/lkml/#s3-19 :
> 
>     It would increase the size of the Subject: line. This is a problem, 
> as it limits the amount of useful information that can be seen in the 
> Subject: line, making it harder to scan through a list of subject lines 
> looking for interesting subjects.
> 
> Mail can easily be filtered based on the "To:" line. This list has too 
> much volume not to be filtered (probably by everyone that uses it), so I 
> don't see an advantage to adding [Ruby]. Further, I don't want to give 
> up even six (really seven) characters that we can use to express 
> ourselves. Thoughts?

Thoughts:

Not everyone filters ruby-talk into its own "folder" in a mail user
agent.  Some of us prefer to have all incoming email appear in the same
inbox list, but want to be able to filter by eye.

Considering even the typical CLI-only terminal has an 80-character width,
I don't see how six characters is such a deal-breaker.  There's something
wrong if people are sending 70+ character subject lines, anyway.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
MacUser, Nov. 1990: "There comes a time in the history of any project when
it becomes necessary to shoot the engineers and begin production."