I'd go with Rob and Christiane on this one. As long as it's kept
short, it's worth it for the added redundancy.
At 9:52 AM +0200 8/8/02, Christiane ROH wrote:
>Le 8.8.2002 1:06, « Rob Miracle » <rwm@photo-miracles.com> a écrit :
>
>>
>> Lets look at the [photoforum] tag issue from various points of view.
>>
>> 1. Someone uses a system that doesn't support filters and mailboxes, i.e
>> AOL.
>> Having the [Photoforum] tag there doesn't hurt those with filters and those
>> without can easily pick out their messages from the spam.
>>
>{Snip }
>>
>> Since putting the [photoforum] tag in the subject line only has a minimal
>> impact in file size transmitted, and its something that Andy should be able
>> to have turned on without too much hassle, I say go for it. No harm, lots
>> of benefits. If you make use of it, great, if not, no big deal.
>
>I agree with Rob, I don't need it, but if it can help some other person, do
>it.. But keep it smaller than {photoforum}, limit it to {PF} :
>If the longer version has a minimal impact on the file size, it diminish the
>number of characters at disposal in the subject line significantly (or at
>list, the number of characters visible in the mailer subject line)..
>
>Christiane
--
Alan P. Hayes
Meaning and Form: Writing, Editing and Document Design
Pittsfield, Massachusetts
