Re: [boost] Avoiding message overload by tagging messages

From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-08-09 20:43:40

----- Original Message -----
From: "Beman Dawes" <beman_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>; <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Avoiding message overload by tagging messages

> David Abrahams wrote:
>
>  >> Is this a worth a try?
>  >
>  >No, I don't think so. But please be democratic and outvote me if
>  >neccessary!
>  >
>  >I like "portability" or just "porting" much better than "CFIX".
>
> Are you arguing against the concept, or a particular choice of keywords?

Both, but more strongly against the choice of keywords

> I wasn't suggesting we do anything complex.  Just pick a few (4-6) common
> topics and ask people to make sure some otherwise unlikely word or word
> appears in the subject. Doesn't have to be a full word, either.  "Thread"
> would cover "Threads", "Threading", "Threaded", etc.  Sub-categories are
> overkill, IMO.
>
> How about:
>
>      Threads
>      CVS
>      Compiler, MSVC, VC, CodeWarrior, CW, BCC, egcs, gcc, and similar
> specific compiler keywords.  (All as a single filter; not separate
> categories)
>
>  >How about we just try to keep the subject lines descriptive?
>
> That alone doesn't help those trying to do automated filtering.

OK.

-Dave