AnsweredAssumed Answered

MORE! VRF-VRF_Suffix

Question asked by VRFuser on May 6, 1998

Folks,

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.

Kind regards,
Andrew

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: VRF-VRF_Suffix
Author:  Non-HP-kraft (kraft@kodak.com) at HP-PaloAlto,mimegw6
Date:    5/7/98 1:28 PM


Let's keep it.
    
----------
> From: Greg Goebel <gvg@hpislsup.lvld.hp.com>
> To: hpvxd_xc@hpislsup.lvld.hp.com
> Subject: VRF-VRF_Suffix
> Date: Thursday, May 07, 1998 2:16 PM
>
> send q VRF-VRF_Suffix vrf
>
> from: Greg Goebel / HP-MXD
>       gvg@lvld.hp.com / 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,
and
> certainly it was no great bother.  But I've been politely suggesting to
people
> when they don't follow the custom that they do so, and getting flak about
it.
>
> So, may I ask:  who wants to keep on this custom, and who wants to drop
it?
> 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

Outcomes