shane at hathawaymix.org
Thu Sep 1 16:34:07 MDT 2005
James Lance wrote:
> On Thursday 01 September 2005 3:02 pm, Michael Halcrow wrote:
>>In my book, the absolute best solution to the general problem of OT
>>messages is the ``[OT]'' in the subject. This makes it easy (a) for
>>humans to identify posts or threads that are of tangential interest or
>>(b) have a procmail filter in place that will toss messages with [OT]
>>to /dev/null. This is a social convention that I would like to see
>>gain more popularity among the masses.
> Agreed. OT isn't that hard to use. If you get tired of a thread: fold it,
> junk it, send it to /dev/null what ever.
However, off-topic messages, even when labeled "OT", are generally
frowned upon, at least in most of the communities I participate in. In
this group, the "OT" messages are generally what I'm looking for. ;-)
Yet I avoid replying to off-topic posts because I don't want to reduce
the S/N ratio as perceived by others.
More information about the PLUG