I don't agree with changing the title frequently. It's already hard enough to track threads which become split arbitrarily, that now there will be no continuity.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Hugh Thornton <hughwthornton@yahoo.co.uk>wrote:
> This is exactly what I do -- read the subject and delete the email without
> reading if it is not of interest to me at the time. I can always go back in
> the archives if something that was not of interest to me then is now.
>
> I just do not think that there is any need for any new action, other than
> to plead with everyone to make the subject title relevant to the content.
> And please remember to change the subject when responding to a posting but
> going off at a tangent or on to a related topic.
>
> Hugh Thornton
> Cheshire, England
>
>
> --- On Thu, 5/11/09, Guy Taylor <guy.taylor@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> From: Guy Taylor <guy.taylor@sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: [CR] overload
> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> Date: Thursday, 5 November, 2009, 2:14
>
>
> I'm not nearly as sophisticated as some computer-wise members. I just look
> at the email title and then delete un-read most of what I see.
> If I see a title that sounds interesting or has to do with a subject I am
> interested in, I'll read them.
> Examples:
> Gitane, don't have one, delete.
> Brakes or no-brakes, not interested, delete.
> Johnny Berry, got one, very interested, read.
> Am I missing a lot of information that I would find interesting or useful?
> I'm sure I am. But it's either do this or use up hours each day to go
> through the email bodies to glean everything possible.
> It works for me.
>
> Guy Taylor
> Anaheim, CA USA
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
--
Ken Freeman
Ann Arbor, MI USA