I have to agree with matt.
> From: Matthew Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: VRF-VRF_Suffix
> Date: Thursday, May 07, 1998 12:03 PM
> Now since I am at least one who started this recent issue, I will
> comment to the group.
> For those of you who are filtering by subject and need the VRF, why not
> just filter by email address. Somthing like if the from email address is
> blah, then filter. That way, the subjects can stay normal.
> I guess my question is why can you not filter by from address and not
> use subject? That way the sender does not have to do it, the admin does
> not have to do it, and you have to only make one change.
> On Thu, 7 May 1998, Greg Goebel wrote:
> > send q VRF-VRF_Suffix vrf
> > from: Greg Goebel / HP-MXD
> > firstname.lastname@example.org / 800-452-4844
> > website: ftp://fcext3.external.hp.com/dist/mxd/index.html
> > to: VRF
> > date: Thursday, 07 May 1998 1212 MDT
> > Hi All:
> > One of the little rules I suggested for the VRF is to prefix messages
> > the VRF with the suffix "VRF-".
> > Feedback I got on the issue indicated people thought it was a good
> > certainly it was no great bother. But I've been politely suggesting to
> > when they don't follow the custom that they do so, and getting flak
> > So, may I ask: who wants to keep on this custom, and who wants to drop
> > I'm not so particular myself.
> > As far as automating it, that's possible, but given sysadmin resources
> > (slender) and free time (slenderer) that's not a short-term option.
> > Thanks for your time and consideration.
> > [<>] regards -- gvg
> Matthew Johnson "In my mind and in my car
> finger <email@example.com> for pgp key we can't rewind we've
> <http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/mrjohns2/> gone too far." -The Buggles