rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (06/25/84)
(This is actually a response to a complaint about "Re:" lines; see the parent article if you have the references line, still have the article on your machine, and can get to it easily.) >The subject line is the most important line in the article, and it should >never be machine generated. As far as many people on the net are concerned, >an article with a bad subject is a waste of net time. I NEVER read an >"orphaned response" or much beyond the first few "Re:" articles, and I know >others are like this too. "Orphaned response" is quite a different matter from using "re:". It's a serious disservice to readers to change the Subject: line slightly without changing the topic you're addressing. Particularly in newsgroups with heavy traffic (e.g., net.music) it's important to be able to scoot around discussions that don't interest you as easily as possible. Having a different Subject: for every article in a discussion makes this a damn pain. >The Subject: header should in fact be deleted and changed to "Synopsis". >In either case, it should be multi-lined as often as possible. I >would even suggest that the software check, and not allow a subject which >is shorter than 30 chars or is the same as the subject of the article >being followed up. If you have something worth saying, it is worth >summarizing. If I'm trying to sort thru 30 followups on a topic, I certainly don't need to ramble thru 30 synopses. Personally, I think we need brevity more. The idea of rejecting short subject lines is just plain silly. What on earth is the sense in punishing people who have the ability to be concise? >Some may object that the software should not impinge so on the freedom >of netters to write what subject they want... I object that the software should not penalize conciseness. Nor should it enforce dissociation of related postings. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Relax...don't worry...have a homebrew.