Identifying cctalk messages

[Jim Isbell, W5JAI]

This is a ridiculous argument.  Just shoot down mine as saying
"everyone else is doing it" and that makes yours right???

First, when I said this list was NOT the only one, it was because
there is ONE other that also does not identify itself...only one.  But
the point was, not that most do, but that when MORE than one do not it
becomes a problem.  If this was the only one then I could identify it
by the lack of a signature.  But because this one and the Chunky Child
Mothers Porn site are the only two that dont identify themselves, I
just dont know which one I am opening.

As someone said, a simple signature such as an "*" or an "^" would not
take away from the length of the subject enough to cause anyone a
problem.

As far as identifying itself in the header, that really opens a can of
worms.  If I allow my mail program to display the headers along with
the subject line in the download list then my 300 lines of test would
become 3000 lines of text since MANY messages come with headers with
multiple addresses in them.  My software displays the entire header,
not just the address of the sender.

On 6/26/06, Jay West <jwest at classiccmp.org> wrote:
> Jim wrote....
> >This is not the only list I have that doesent identify itself and it is
> >frustrating
> > when you dont know which list sent it.  MOST lists have an identifying
> > signature in the subject line!!!
>
> As you say, ClassicCMP isn't the ONLY list you have that "doesn't identify
> itself"[1]. Perhaps there is a reason why we're not the only one. You're
> correct that most lists do have some text in the subject line, but I hardly
> think numbers alone is a cogent argument... that's the same logic that made
> windows the predominant OS these days ;)
>
> Jay West
> [1] I beg to differ with your characterization of ClassicCMP list traffic
> "not identifying itself". It actually does identify itself in a way that
> EVERY (yes, EVERY) mailing list identifies itself. Unlike the subject line
> tag, which not all lists do. It's just not identifying itself in the way
> your eyes are looking for. In fact, it's identifying itself in a less error
> prone manner that is much MORE common (actually, 100%, cause pretty much all
> lists have headers identifying the source).
>
>


-- 
Jim Isbell
"If you are not living on the edge, well then,
you are just taking up too much space."