Re: [Orgmode] Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?

[Jeff Horn]

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Bastien <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi Štěpán,
>
> Štěpán Němec <address@hidden> 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.
>

Is the capital-O gnu practice as well? I have no objection to changing
the tag, since gmail filters my mail for me, but a lower-case-o seems
more consistent with other org nomenclature.

-- 
Jeffrey Horn
http://www.failuretorefrain.com/jeff/