My two-cents. For those who want to filter by address, remember that a lot of
people use reply-to-all. This will result in mail being recieved that pertains
to the VRF, but will not be caught by address filtering. I like subject-line
filtering for that reason. i.e. Sometimes you recieve multiple messages on
replies because you get one sent directly to you, and another from the vrf.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: VRF-VRF_Suffix
Author: Non-HP-kraft (email@example.com) at HP-PaloAlto,mimegw6
Date: 5/7/98 1:28 PM
Let's keep it.
> From: Greg Goebel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: VRF-VRF_Suffix
> Date: Thursday, May 07, 1998 2:16 PM
> 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 to
> the VRF with the suffix "VRF-".
> Feedback I got on the issue indicated people thought it was a good idea,
> 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 about
> 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