Date   : Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:22:40 -0600
From   : jules.richardson99@... (Jules Richardson)
Subject: Ban off-topic posts

Pete Turnbull wrote:
> Rick Murray wrote:
> 
>> It seems strange to me that so many people seem to be allergic to 
>> message filtering and rules. It all comes in, gets sorted, and filed 
>> accordingly. The "[OT]" in the header is a useful thing. 
> 
> I don't see a need for a new list, but I agree with Rick's sentiment 
> about using the "[OT]" in the header.  It's simple and effective.
> 
> I subscribe to several mailing lists, and I can say that this one has 
> far fewer off-topic posts than many.  It's hardly a problem most of the 
> time.  How many of us remember the original list when it was hosted at 
> York?  That certainly allowed off-topic posts.

*raises hand*

The way I think of it, it needs to have a sense of community to survive anyway 
- which means off-topic stuff here and there and some banter between the 
'regulars'. A straight Q&A list is all well and good, but I'd feel less 
inclined to sit there monitoring traffic when there was no hint of a social 
element.

A major point for me is that I'm not interesting in half the stuff that's 
considered on-topic anyway, so a lot of list traffic is *always* going to be 
unnecessary as far as I'm concerned, and there are *always* going to be 
messages that I skim-read or skip over. A bit of off-topic here and there 
doesn't make much difference - and even less so if it's labeled as such.

<sarcasm>I'm more upset about having to read "[BBC-Micro]" on every subject 
line when I don't need to because my mail client filters list traffic into a 
BBC micro list folder anyway</sarcasm>

cheers

Jules