He has a point there. The system considers: [WOT] blah blah To be UN tagged. Where as: [OT][WOT] blah blah Is actually tagged as OT with a subject line of [WOT] blah blah "[OT][WOT]..." isn't a problem for people who don't want "[WOT]" and who do filtering rules in their email client or server, but for those who do not have that ability, " [WOT].." could be turned on or off (along with all untagged posts) via the mailman interface at MIT. In general, from what I have seen of late, a lot of [OT] topics should be tagged [EE] (in some way related to engineering) and [OT] is designed to include [WOT]. Any of it just doesn't matter that much to me as long as [PIC] is bloody well PIC related and ONLY PIC related. -- James. -----Original Message----- From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu] On Behalf Of Xiaofan Chen Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 01:27 To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. Subject: Re: [OT] Should [WOT] be allowed or not On 12/7/07, Apptech wrote: > Given that [WOT] is [NOT] a [TAG] then you can [POT] or > [NOT] or [ALL THAT ROT] to your heart's [CONTENT] as long as > it follows a valid tag. James is not concerned (he has > indicated) about capitalised material in square brackets - > as long as it is preceded by a valid tag. Dual Tag is bad. It is better to use [WOT] as the only tag and it will be considered as no tag so that I can turn it off. Xiaofan -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist