From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bastien <bastien.guerry@wikimedia.fr>
Subject: Re: Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 19:12:17 +0100
Message-ID: <87ei8s1qta.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <4D0B24DA.2050201@gmail.com>
	<AANLkTin-VZAm9K5DOmRe0KKxQpxyW1aOWkKVbcgRDHM9@mail.gmail.com>
	<87ei8sae89.fsf@gnu.org> <87zkrg600j.fsf@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=55787 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PaBN4-0004d8-Ka
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Jan 2011 13:12:35 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <bastienguerry@googlemail.com>) id 1PaBN3-0007FR-Gk
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Jan 2011 13:12:34 -0500
Received: from mail-wy0-f169.google.com ([74.125.82.169]:38384)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <bastienguerry@googlemail.com>) id 1PaBN3-0007Dr-C2
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Jan 2011 13:12:33 -0500
Received: by wyj26 with SMTP id 26so15194467wyj.0
	for <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>; Tue, 04 Jan 2011 10:12:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <87zkrg600j.fsf@gmail.com> (=?utf-8?B?IsWgdMSbcMOhbiBOxJtt?=
	=?utf-8?B?ZWMiJ3M=?= message of "Tue, 04 Jan 2011 18:39:56 +0100")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: =?utf-8?B?xaB0xJtww6FuIE7Em21lYw==?= <stepnem@gmail.com>
Cc: Org-mode ml <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>

Hi Štěpán,

Štěpán Němec <stepnem@gmail.com> writes:

> FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects
> of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable
> (e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike
> [Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject:
> header space.

Not that reducing the label from [Orgmode] to [Org] already seem to be a
progress in the right direction :)

Would you object having [Org] instead of [Orgmode]?

> I have never understood why anyone would like anything like that.

As Giovanni recalled, this is a standard GNU practice and I won't break
it.  Maybe this is a leftover from the time when most used email clients
had no clever filters -- but maybe it's still useful for web archiving 
or other purposes I cannot think of right now.

Cheers,

-- 
 Bastien