OT: [sdiy] Re: Replying <and tags> :)

[Glen]

At 01:25 AM 1/26/01 , Don Tillman wrote:

>Now's a good time to say THANK YOU RICK for running the best email
>list on the internet.

Despite sending several posts explaining my dislike of the current
"Reply-to:" behavior, I really do appreciate this list, and I hope that
everyone remembers my saying that already. This is my favorite list, and
there were only a few little things I would like to have changed, if I had
the chance. Even if these things never change, this is still a great list
and I certainly do appreciate the job that Rick has done.


>(And thanks for setting up the replies properly.  Folks that are
>proposing alternatives should really read over RFC-822.)

Okay, I give up. Do what you will with the "Reply-To:" behavior. I'm tired
of talking about it.


On the other hand, I have to say that the new [sdiy] tags don't do a thing
for me. Since several other people have mentioned them, I'll add my
comments as well. I think they are nearly useless, somewhat ugly, and take
up precious subject-line real estate that would be better reserved for the
actual subject. For example the following actual subject line looks pretty
ate-up with tags:

   Re: [sdiy] Re: Replying

That's a total of 15 characters used up by tags (counting "Re:", which
appears twice) and there are only 8 characters in the actual subject
itself. If we were to throw in an "OT:" tag as well, (which we should for
this subject), it begins to look really ugly.

   Re: OT: [sdiy] Re: Replying

I promise not to rant about the "[sdiy]" tags in the future, but just for
the record, I don't really care for them.


Later,
Glen