Re: Auxiliary Header surprises... (fwd)

Tung-chiang Yang (tcyang@EE.UCLA.EDU)
Sun, 29 Sep 1996 00:12:13 -0700 (PDT)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Trout, Richard: "FAQ on FAQ Authoring/Maintenance"
Previous message: Kent Landfield: "Re: Auxiliary Header surprises..."

Forwarded message:
> From: Kent Landfield <kent@landfield.com>
> Message-Id: <199609290216.VAA26825@landfield.com>
> Subject: Re: Auxiliary Header surprises...
> Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 21:16:58 -0500 (CDT)
>
> (deleted)
>
> # These could be useful additions in my case.
> #
> # Copyright: 1994, 1995, 1996 by Martin J Leese
> # Distribution: Unlimited
> # Maintainer: Martin Leese <mleese@omg.unb.ca>
> #
> # Can anyone think of reasons not to include them? Are the value parts
> # sensible?
>
> I like the Copyright: and Maintainer: since it makes sense in terms of
> an FAQ posting (not to mention that they seem to be in widespread use
> already ;-) ).

Personally I believe Maintainer: field is redundant. Usually the
maintainer is just the person who regularly posts the FAQ to news.answers
(the address in From:), and in that case there is no need to have another
auxiliary header.

Of course, I do not use the automatic FAQ poster program and maybe it
puts different things in From:, which I am not sure.

> (deleted)

-- 
Tung-chiang Yang         tcyang@ee.ucla.edu
Dept. of Electrical Engineering, UCLA, USA
Sep 29, 1996

Next message: Trout, Richard: "FAQ on FAQ Authoring/Maintenance"
Previous message: Kent Landfield: "Re: Auxiliary Header surprises..."

[ Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive | Search Mail Archive | Authors | Usenet ]
[ 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 ]