1 message in com.perforce.jamming[jamming] [An aside:] email about jam...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Richard Geiger | 07 Jan 2002 09:11 |
| Subject: | [jamming] [An aside:] email about jam to opensource@perforce.com |
|---|---|
| From: | Richard Geiger (rm...@perforce.com) |
| Date: | 01/07/2002 09:11:27 AM |
| List: | com.perforce.jamming |
Executive summary: please use "rm...@perforce.com" instead of "open...@perforce.com" for group discussion email threads, and reserve "open...@perforce.com" for particular action requests between one of you and I.
More detail:
Mail to "open...@perforce.com" (like mail to "supp...@perforce.com" goes into our call tracking system. "New" threads (as determined by the lack of a "(CALL#nnnnnn)" token in the Subject) line cause a new call record to be opened and assigned a number.
When a thread addressed to a group (like)
To: recip1, recip2, recip3, open...@perforce.com
originates, and there is a subsequent exchange of messages between the "recip" participants, it opens a flurry of new call records in the Perforce call tracker. Now, this isn't really harmful, but it makes life a little more difficult for me.
So: for these general multiway jam-related discussions, it would be better, I think, to go ahead and address me directly (rm...@perforce.com). Please try to reserve "open...@perforce.com" for instances where the email represents a specific request for assistance on a particular issue.
I know the distinction here can be subtle, so don't sweat it too much; for now, I'd say, for mail about Jam topics: when in doubt, err on the side of "rm...@perforce.com". I'll try to make my presence in discussions on the jamming mailing list always be from "rm...@perforce.com", to encourage this.
Thanks! I'm hoping that my (and our, at Perforce) appreciation of your enthusiasm for using and improving upon Jam will become more apparent than ever over the next few weeks.
- Richard Geiger Open Source Engineer at Perforce