🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <TRSNYDER.92Nov7231333@queen.mcs.Drexel.edu> trsnyder@mcs.Drexel.edu (Bob Snyder) writes:
>>>>>> In article <567@ulogic.UUCP>, hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M.
>>>>>> Hartman) writes:
>
>Much better than "Request for Discussion: rec.m".  Some newsreaders truncate
>Subject lines.  and generally a subject line "RFD: comp.sillyness reorg" should
>provoke enough interest to be read.
>
>Richard> Should the messages that are posted to the affected groups have
>Richard> more detailed, unobfuscated "Subject:" lines?  e.g. (1/2 :) ) :
>
>	> Subject: Your news group may be renamed!!! Speak up NOW!
>
>So when I go to read news.announce.newgroups, I see how many of these headers?
>:-)


Well it was only 1/2 serious...  Got any better ideas?  Perhaps
RFD to news.groups and a seperate msg (& header) to affected
groups referring them to the "real" discussion thread?


	-Richard Hartman
	hartman@ulogic.COM

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"If we shadows have offended, Think but this and all is mended:
 That you have but slumbered here, While these visions did appear.
 And this weak and idle theme, no more yielding but a dream."