Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/01/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]If I'm in a hurry, I hardly ever read e-mails where the first screen shows only the original posting, and the reply is buried several scrolls down the screen. If I am being lazy in response, then I reply like this at the top and put the whole original e-mail below. If I'm feeling relaxed and generous, then I do some editing and <snip>ing. It's like the old letter that began, "Sorry, I would have made this note shorter, but I didn't have the time." Gary Todoroff - ---------- > From: Leikon35@aol.com > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: [Leica] Re: % of LUG mail deleted w/o being read > Date: Saturday, January 31, 1998 4:28 PM > > It would be interesting to compile a list of the percentage of the 50 or more > LUG posts per day - that are deleted without being read as I have heard many > members say that they would automatically delete all post which were from > certain members that really bear no interest to the group & should have been > sent by private mail. > > I don't think that I am alone in deleting all mail in which the subject is: > "Leica-Users List Digest xxxxxxx" unless it was from someone that > from past reading I respect. > > I will open the compilation with my own figure of approx. 66% deleted with > out being read; After all no one wants to spend all day reading mail. > > To the LUGgers that still remember my last compilation, with the help > of Patrick & Simon, of the 506 members from 39 countries - it might be > significant to note that the subscribers roster has dropped by almost 20%. > IMHO due to the great influx of non - pertinent mail. > > Marvin Moss > ==================================================== > In a message dated 98-01-31 13:28:05 EST, Marc Small writes: > << > It's a sage idea, when responding to a digest entry, to change the subject > back to what the initial discussion was. Most of the regular LUG members > will ignore the heading as shown above as they haven't a clue as to what is > being discussed. > > I disagree with you and have the weight of optical authority on my side, > but, so be it. The issue isn't worth pursuing. > > Best, > > Marc > >>