Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!ginosko!uunet!mcsun!sunic!tut!kannel!kim From: kim@kannel.lut.fi (Kimmo Suominen) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: Tired of bogus subject lines? Message-ID: Date: 14 Sep 89 13:27:14 GMT References: <1650@unocss.UUCP> <112@blekko.UUCP> <6120@ficc.uu.net> <699@philmtl.philips.ca> <12715@looking.on.ca> Sender: kim@kannel.lut.fi Organization: Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland Lines: 28 In-reply-to: brad@looking.on.ca's message of 13 Sep 89 07:41:31 GMT In article <12715@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) Date: 13 Sep 89 07:41:31 GMT Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd. In fact, my argument has always been that the ability to have an automatic subject line with "Re:" is a bug in the news posting programs. It discourages people writing descriptive subjects. What I want is a subject line that tells what is in the article it heads, not a subject line that tells what is in the article it's replying to, N times removed. I find it very handy to kill articles on some subjects and as far as those Re: subjects are true, killing works fine. I'm sure I'll loose something that way, but that's not my problem. So if anyone has something important to say, (s)he'd better change the sub- ject. Personally I'm for the "New stuff (was: Old stuff)" style of subject lines. I've been using NN and I'm now using GNUS and both allow me to edit the sub- ject line before posting (they do offer me a default as well). Kim -- ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ( Kimmo Suominen Electronic Mail on Internet: kim@kannel.lut.fi ) ( "That's what I think!" on Funet: KUULA::KIM ) ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''