
Very Short Reply Expected - vrypan
http://blog.vrypan.net/2013/4/21/vsre-very-short-reply-expected/
======
kyro
I think people tend to grossly exaggerate how many emails they really do get.
Are you really that damn busy that you can't spend a minute or less writing a
more natural and conversational reply that indicates to the other person that
you're reciprocating the amount of thought and effort they invested in their
message?

I agree with some others here in saying that this is awkward. You don't strive
for efficiency in social interactions. You stay an extra couple of minutes to
let a friend babble on about a story you don't care about because you're
socially tactful and tact is the lubricant that preserves our social
relationships.

~~~
mbell
> Are you really that damn busy that you can't spend a minute or less writing
> a more natural and conversational reply

It's not that simple.

If I'm in the middle of a coding binge I can switch over and fire off a 'VSRE'
without losing place. Converting that into a 'sociable' reply requires a
mental context switch out of coding land and into human land. That doesn't
cost me 2 minutes, It costs me half an hour [0]. So either the e-mail gets a
terse response, or the sender waits a couple hours till I hit a mental break
point in what I'm doing.

[0] <http://blog.ninlabs.com/2013/01/programmer-interrupted/>

~~~
Paul_D_Santana
When I'm programming, I close all email and instant messaging applications, as
well as put my phone on Airplane mode. I find limiting interruptions in this
way to be incredible for mental focus. I highly recommend it, if you don't
already do this (?).

I also use the following website to set a timer for however long I have to
program (whether it be a 15 minute sprint or a _luxurious_ 90 minute block):

<http://www.online-stopwatch.com/full-screen-stopwatch>

As for the main topic, I have this as my signature:

    
    
      Hi [name]
    
    
    
      Thank you,
      Paul Santana
    

I copy and paste the person's name from the _To:_ field in Outlook _(this
ensures I never mistype someone's name)_ , delete the last name, and write a
few words in the middle. Done; professional and courteous email template
without any additional effort.

~~~
Isofarro
> I copy and paste the person's name from the To: field in Outlook (this
> ensures I never mistype someone's name), delete the last name,

Oh, _that_ explains the number of "Dear [full-version-of-my-name]",
overlooking the shorter version in my own sign off.

~~~
robryan
If you want people to address you by a shorter name why not put that in the
from?

~~~
ygra
In some places you don't have control over the From (or the footer for that
matter). E.g. I get a forced from in the form »LastName FirstName« which I'd
rather have the other way around (also because last-first without the comma
isn't common here [in fact, I've never seen it before]), yet I cannot.

------
mode80
When sending a VSR that might otherwise be rude, I just add "Sent from my
iPhone" at the bottom. Don't tell anyone.

~~~
fudged71
It gets suspicious if you write this and you don't have an iPhone ;)

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
"Sent from my Samsung"

"Sent from my Windows Phone"

"Sent from my $OEM"

They all follow the same pattern these days.

~~~
Ives
I prefer "Sent from my phone". Why on earth would I advertise my particular
brand of phone?

~~~
evanmoran
I changed mine to "Sent from my iPhone 6". People were wondering how I got one
=).

------
andrewvc
Annnnnnd this is why geeks have a reputation for social awkwardness.

~~~
TeMPOraL
This is not social awkwardness. This is social efficiency.

~~~
andrewvc
_No, you've got it all wrong! Geeks aren't socially awkward, they're socially
"efficient"_

Social conventions aren't established by protocol drafts, they're organic.

Also, people write long replies for a reason. Wording indicates emotional
state. If you have trouble reading emotional state, you don't care. If, like
most people, you _do_ care, then this proposal is ridiculous.

An example:

"How about we schedule lunch next week? VSRP"

VSRP: "Can't make it, extremely busy. Maybe next month?"

FULL: "Sorry to say, I can't make it. I'd really like to but we're in a crunch
right now, and I've got a booked calendar. Perhaps next month when things have
died down? I'd really like to catch up but this month is already overwhelming"

I might take the VSRP as a bit of an affront. The full explanation however is
quite understandable.

~~~
Swizec
Personally, I find the latter response just disrespectful of my time. If all
you want/need to say is you can't make it, don't write a bloody novel! All I
need is an answer.

There's a time and place for long communication and it's in person. Not in an
email.

~~~
eropple
That would be a problem between you and...you.

People _are_ more important than "your time", and a failure to realize that is
a dehumanization of the other party. The latter response demonstrates
emotional sensitivity towards the other person in the conversation. Among most
people, that is important. It makes the other party feel good. It reinforces
that you do care about the other party enough to ensure that they are not
potentially affronted by terse communication. This is why normal people,
lacking in the self-absorption your post exudes, do this sort of thing.

And in any case it doesn't take more than a few seconds to write or read; when
the hell did four sentences become a "bloody novel"?

~~~
Swizec
Thing is, we're not in high school anymore. We're all adults here and we
should be able to see the difference between being rude and being terse.

"potentially affronted" is not a thing I particularly care about. If I want to
affront you, oh you'll know. Believe me.

More interestingly, the only people I've ever seen write email like in that
example are people who send/receive less than about 5 emails a day. The more
they have to process daily, the shorter their messages become.

~~~
eropple
_> Thing is, we're not in high school anymore. We're all adults here and we
should be able to see the difference between being rude and being terse._

In written contexts, _there often isn't_. Without what I would call a
significant amount of personal history, there isn't enough data and there
aren't nonverbal cues to demonstrate terseness versus rudeness. Many people
will assume rudeness, because that's what that pattern generally looks like.

Also, there's the nerd stereotype of being a standoffish jerk to consider,
which you are doing a bang-up job of reinforcing with crap like this:

 _> "potentially affronted" is not a thing I particularly care about. If I
want to affront you, oh you'll know. Believe me._

This is the sort of thing I would expect a teenager in the throes of self-
absorption to say. I say this because I did. Then I grew up.

You're being an asshole. You'll be happier if you stop.

~~~
Swizec
> "You're being an asshole. You'll be happier if you stop."

Not at all. I've noticed a general uptick in happiness since I started taking
people at face value and stopped worrying about walking on egg shells for no
reason whatsoever.

You know what you get by trying too hard to be polite and making absolutely
certain no feelings could possibly get hurt? The language bureaucrats use to
say "Your tax basis this year is X" on two A4 pages.

I hate it when people beat around the bush. So I avoid doing it.

------
tikhonj
This is what I use Jabber for--Jabber messages have an implicit VSRE attached.
In practice, it's just like email except that the replies are usually short.
For me, Jabber messages get delivered to the same places on both my computer
and phone, and take about the same amount of effort to respond to.

It has the added benefit of potentially being a real-time conversation as well
--this sometimes happens with a flurry of short emails, but it's much more
awkward.

I was hoping Google Wave would take off an neatly combine the two. But it
never did :(.

~~~
micampe
_> I was hoping Google Wave would take off an neatly combine the two._

This is the best thing about Facebook messages: they’re hafway between chat
and email and a conversation can seamlessly morph from one form to the other
and back.

~~~
slig
Facebook messages suck.

\- You can't read them without announcing that you did. \- FB parses and might
even censor you message if it contains blacklisted domains.

~~~
rdl
I actually really like facebook messages (except for the security issues); I
tend to use them for social messages with my facebook friends (which is
essentially a superset of my real life friends). I use it to message my
girlfriend (tied with iMessage) about "when do you want me to pick you up from
work", etc.

(The obnoxious thing is that both of our phones are Verizon iPhones; there's
no simultaneous voice and data, and unlike me, she tends to do long voice
calls with people. I'm trying to get her to switch to a SIP client, so we can
do G.722 wideband and crypto/vpn on the voice too, and non-extortionate
international long distance.)

~~~
salvadors
security issues?

------
asveikau
One thing I've noticed is that people who expect short replies sometimes write
very short mails to begin with. I think that might be more effective to set
expectations than coming up with a new acronym and having to wait for it to
catch on (if ever).

If the content you need a short reply to is a bit longer, you can also write a
short summary before the longer part. Something like "Below is blah blah blah,
wondering if you have any quick comments. Thanks, yournamehere." Then below is
your multi-paragraphed whatever.

~~~
blantonl
I believe that Steve Jobs was one that practiced this when dealing with
customers. And it seamed like his responses were always dead on target -
whereas a PR team would launch into a long winded response to a customer,
Steve summed it up in one sentence.

That surely drove Apple's PR team crazy...

~~~
nemonoko
I've seen people who are great at short emails... but I've also seen a lot of
miscommunication when people shoot fragments back and forth. It's a fine line
between concise and useless.

------
xnxn
I like this idea, but I wonder about the phrasing. I wouldn't want my more...
loquacious colleagues to misinterpret it as an imperative ("please do not send
me a wall of text").

~~~
thatthatis
Interesting point. Is VSRE something that empowers the respondent to choose: A
"social out from a full polite response"? Or is it a "social obligation to
provide a short response?"

~~~
danbruc
Make it explicit - VSR _A_ vs VSR _E_ , acceptable vs expected. But this makes
the whole thing unnecessarily complex and I would prefer VSRA - I am fine with
getting a very short reply. If it is not possible a, long reply is also fine
but try to keep it as short as possible.

Different suggestions from the comments.

    
    
      CURT - condensed unfussy reply tolerable
      CURT - CURT unfussy reply tolerable
      NLRN - no long reply needed
      TCRA - très courte réponse attendue
      VSRA - very short reply acceptable
      VSRO - very short reply okay
      VSRW - very short reply welcome
    

That got forked quickly. And we need a standardization committee. Or maybe a
poll will do.

~~~
cjh_
I quite like the idea of using the OP's original phrasing of 'welcome' as I
find that pleasingly polite

    
    
        VSRW - Very short reply welcome

~~~
danbruc
That's my favorite one for the moment.

~~~
thatthatis
Likewise. +1 for VSRW

------
qeorge
I love this. I'm also extremely fond of EOM (short for End Of Message. An
email with a short subject and no body).

Often I send EOMs to imply a VSRE. For example, "Grill tonight? Have burgers.
Off work @ 6. EOM"

Very interested in learning others.

~~~
sgpl
NNTR: 'no need to reply' is another common abbreviation.

Pro-tip: Use them as TextExpander snippets to avoid getting another message
asking you to clarify what EOM/NNTR means as only a subset of people are
familiar with & use these abbreviations.

~~~
jessepollak
NNTR or NNRT?

------
bpatrianakos
How about VSRA. Very short reply accepted. VSRE can come off a bit harsh both
for the sender and receiver. By using VSRA you're saying "hey, if you're real
busy I won't be offended by a super short response. As others have mentioned
here, the idea of VSRE can be socially awkward. By making it optional you
avoid that. I suggest this not as a replacement but as an alternative. You
could use VSRE with people you know well and VSRA with anyone else.

~~~
danbruc
We have already quite a few alternative suggestions [1] including VSRA but we
probably have to do a poll to settle on one. I have not enough karma to start
one but the idea is probably doomed if several alternatives start to spread.

[1] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5586653>

------
3pt14159
I starting answering emails shortly without needing to see VSRE because I'm
warm enough on the first email. After that, it is all short answers unless I
have a reason to do otherwise.

------
josephfung
A fan of the idea - giving people permission is a good solution. The word
"expected", however, can carry different connotations. VSRO (very short reply
okay) might be friendlier?

------
nemonoko
I wish email came with a YES/NO embed button. Even a RECEIVED/READ button
would be useful. Recipient can hit those buttons and move on... Sender knows
the status and can move on.

I know you can embed Google Forms, but don't know if they work for all email
clients. Anyone use them?

~~~
batiudrami
Initially I wasn't a huge fan of the 'seen' status in Facebook messenger, but
it's actually really useful when speaking with my good friends (who I know
won't reply, but knowing they've seen it is all that's necessary).

I just wish it was optional so that certain contacts won't necessarily know
that I've seen their message.

------
chucknibbleston
I find "VSRE" unnecessary: if you write efficiently, anyone capable of a VSR
will follow suit.

~~~
pbiggar
Writing "efficiently" can be rude. Look at his example. You can't just reply
with only the word "no", because that's rude.

~~~
heurist
Why do you need to write a long reply to say no? His example can be shortened
to:

 _Dear John,_

 _Thank you ..., I would be happy to ... but unfortunately I am unavailable.
Please [....]_

 _Sincerely,_

 _A. Guy_

This shortened version takes as much thought as the 'very short' version and
doesn't require a new acronym. There are cases where the longer reply would
work better, but most of the time you don't need to give your reasons for
saying no to someone. I'd say his response is pretty formal, and that's
probably unnecessary for 95% of the unsolicited email he gets. In less formal
responses you can convey some enthusiasm (real or not) with an exclamation
mark, and that removes the potential rudeness ("Hi John, Thanks for your
interest! Unfortunately I am not available that weekend. Best of luck, A.
Guy"). Translating emotion to or from text does require a little bit of effort
but it's really no different than normal spoken conversation.

------
skybrian
I think you're jumping ahead; it can't be an acronym before people even start
using it. Maybe write "Short reply OK" for now.

~~~
gorloth
personally I find "short reply OK" to be preferably. It comes across as less
harsh, it tells the other party that you are ok with removing the random fluff
if they want to. VSRE is a demand that all the fluff be removed

------
the1
i usually end an email with a multiple choice question. that way, the receiver
could just reply with the answer.

did you like my comment?

a) yes

b) no

~~~
artursapek
A

------
vectorpush
Until this thread I honestly thought I was the only person who spends time
agonizing over the wording of simple replies.

------
argonaut
There's this one person I know well, a chatty extroverted business guy, not a
socially awkward engineer, who always has extremely short, curt emails. He
comes off in his emails as kind of a dick because of this, and now whenever I
meet him in real life I find him annoying (when previously I wasn't annoyed at
him).

------
city41
It's an interesting idea, probably worth exploring.

It seems like email is exponentially getting harder to manage all the time.
One thing I've noticed is if I send a reply from my phone that has the "Sent
from my phone" signature on it, then people are 100% ok with short, blunt
replies where they wouldn't be without that signature.

~~~
john_w_t_b
Mobile email has changed the etiquette of communication already. Even without
the "Sent from my phone", people are using short replies from their cell
phones and tablets. It's better for both the sender and receiver on a mobile
device.

Steve Jobs was famous for his terse replies to customer emails. e.g.

customer: "Will the forthcoming iPad support tethering?"

Jobs reply: "No"

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/steve-
jobs/8721493/The...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/steve-
jobs/8721493/The-top-five-terse-Steve-Jobs-email-replies.html)

------
tmslnz
I am since a while omitting dears and wishes and being very terse in my
replies. Most people seem to get the message, relax and simply reply to me
with similar tone, making the whole exchange much more pleasant and less prone
to misinterpretation.

Perhaps instead of adding an acronym out of the blue — that very much no-one
outside HN will ever bother figuring out — we could train ourselves and our
correspondants to understand that there is no need for excessive form under
the majority of circumstances. The medium is very flexible, but our attitude
is stuck. And maybe the reason for the stuckedness is that email, unlike less
pervasive media, is used by people of every age, every degree of computer
literacy, every background, etc. There: one more reason why VSRE or any
variation is unlikely to make it further than a couple of days from today.

------
awkward_silence
While I understand the spirit of this proposal, I vehemently oppose it.

In social interactions you DO NOT tell the recipient how to answer. You are
talking to another sentient being, not a computer. VSRE comes across as an
imperative, which is simply not work well for healthy communication. It
basically tells the recipient (or recipients) reply my way or the highway.

It also depends on the question or how it was understood. With VSRE you are
working under the assumption that your phraseology and verbiage is flawless
and universally understood. Specially in a field such software development
with tons of people from a ton of different cultures, VSRE will invariably
cause more harm than good.

In fact, you could even suggest to your recipient, in a more amicable way to
answer briefly.

VSRE, in my opinion, is the antithesis of what communication and technology
should be about.

------
fjpoblam
VSRE sounds like a good idea, as long as the recipient is on close enough
terms to not be offended (or stifled) by "expected". (The witness will please
answer with a simple "Yes" or "No".) Maybe VSRPA (Very Short Reply Perfectly
Acceptable) would be more appropriate.

~~~
bwilkins
How about VSRP - Very Short Reply Preferred?

------
FiloSottile
I'm going to use it, and I'd love to receive emails tagged as such.

So, submitted to the Urban Dictionary!

------
pelian
In China most people never went through the whole e-mail era and practically
jumped right into mobile. QQ is the defacto communication channel and Wechat
微信 is quickly replacing QQ as the method of choice today. The point is, e-mail
was intended to mimic letter writing, so "short" wasn't the point. Chat
messaging and short voice messaging protocols via mobile devices and their
clunky keyboards were, so why not adopt a new communication method instead of
a new acronym no one knows?

------
rdl
I don't think politeness and length of message really correlate.

"Can I marry your daughter?" "Sorry, no" or "Sorry, no, she's already married"
isn't less polite inherently than a 30 page screed about how you would rather
just give her a shotgun to kill herself instead of torturing her like that,
etc.

In fact, my shorter replies are usually my most polite. I think there is a
point where it gets too short (single word answers, like some of pg's answers
on hn, might be below the lower bound).

~~~
mistercow
>"Can I marry your daughter?" "Sorry, no" or "Sorry, no, she's already
married" isn't less polite inherently than a 30 page screed about how you
would rather just give her a shotgun to kill herself instead of torturing her
like that, etc.

Counter-examples aren't a very good denial of correlation though. Sure, you
can come up with examples of long replies and short replies where the longer
reply is less polite, but that doesn't say anything about the general trend.

------
bsilvereagle
If you could get some SEO happening for VSRE it would be very much
appreciated. Hyperlinking to your post every time I want to use VSRE would be
very time consuming.

------
pbreit
If it means "very short reply OK" why isn't it VSRO? "Expected" almost sounds
too demanding to me...like you'll actually be disappointed if I write a little
more.

~~~
thatthatis
"Very short reply Welcome" VSRW was discussed elsewhere to make clear that it
is an invitation but not an expectation.

~~~
openmx
I like this too, I might start using it but with a text expander so others
don't reply asking what the hell it means.

------
Xanthius
I'd want to maintain the French aspect, esp if it's an alternative to RSVP....

Strictly: Très courte réponse attendue. My preferred: Tout courte réponse
attendue.

So maybe TCRA instead of VSRA...?

~~~
philwelch
Dear god, why? That's just cargo culting.

------
mryzyn505
I like VSRE for composition as well as response efficiency.

Many email guides recommend short emails. But it can take more time to craft a
pithy missive than a longer explanatory FYI note with a question at the end
that needs responding to.

I'm not suggesting that we don't take care in writing emails, but no one wants
to spend all day editing emails to some arbitrary standard of brevity anymore
than they do answering them.

VSRE. Brilliant convention.

------
Wintamute
The most viral/popular acronyms are easily pronounceable, I think. Acronyms
like lol, rofl, afaik, imho etc. Not that you go around saying them all the
time, but you can easily pronounce them in your own head so I think they tend
to stick there and flow into your text easily. Maybe something along the lines
of "sro" (short reply ok) would be better ...

~~~
raldi
How do you pronounce "RSVP"?

~~~
Leszek
Aresveepee, obviously. Rolls off the tongue.

~~~
andrewflnr
Viyesaro? I'm tempted to put an accent on the last "o"...

Edit: um, viyesaree. Someone suggested VSRO elsewhere, for "very short reply
OK" and I liked that _a lot_ better, apparently.

------
anantzoid
I guess VSRE is a very appropriate method to skip the social formalities and
discomforting feeling it brings along with it. Some people (like me) like to
keep it brief and to the point, rather than pulling strings of over-
politeness. It doesn't mean we are rude or something, its just that we are
comfortable with this way of interaction at work place.

------
y0z
Another initiative along a similar vein that I tried for a while is called
5Sentences: <http://five.sentenc.es/>

I have tried to adopt the principle now, without including it in my footers.

In the environment that I'm in something like this would be great if everyone
could adopt it - very few would in reality.

------
maffydub
At work, where everyone uses Outlook, I often just set up a "poll" for this
(even for only 1 recipient - it's only a couple of clicks). It does rely on me
being able to guess what their answer will be, but for things like "Please
confirm you'll meet deadline X", it's fine.

Obviously, this doesn't work in non-homogeneous environments.

------
phryk
IMHO "Very Short Reply Expected" makes it sound like an answer longer than ~5
words is not welcome. I think it ought to be more inclusive so that in case
there is more to say you still feel welcome to do so. Maybe something like SRW
for "Short response welcome"…?

------
blantonl
If a sales/business dev guy sent me a unsolicited message promoting their
latest ad delivery platform or obscure SAAS solution, with VSRE at the end of
his message - I would definitely view his approach in a better light.

But, likely my response would still be: "No."

~~~
d23
Which, despite the "VSRE," would probably still come across as douchey. I
don't think the op's idea would actually even work in practice, because the
recipient still isn't communicating that what they are saying is polite. For
all the sender knows, they could still be saying it gruffly.

Smilies can accomplish what the author intended.

    
    
        "Can't, busy this week"
    

Becomes

    
    
        "Can't, busy this week :("
    

If you don't mind looking like a wuss.

------
JohnLBevan
Should there be an RSVW (welcome) as well as an RWVE (expected)? i.e. RSVE I'd
interpret as "I don't have time to read long replies" whilst RSVW I'd read as
"I'm happy for your response to be brief, but if you prefer verbose knock
yourself out".

------
cheese1756
Add "Sent from my iPhone/Android Phone/etc" as the signature for all of your
emails, not just your mobile ones. With it, a short reply is socially
acceptable, and you are able to give brief answers.

------
mgav
My circle uses NNTOOR in the subject line, plus the text being communicated
(No Need To Open the email Or Respond (everything's in the subject line).

It's awesome to zip through 10 NNTOOR emails in one minute!

------
edouard1234567
VSRE is implied in twitter or SMS simply because the length of the message is
limited. Maybe we could introduce replies without bodies for emails? RWB? also
know for "Royal Winnipeg Ballet"

------
shurcooL
This is awesome, thanks for the suggestion, I can see myself using this quite
often. If I don't need more than a VSR, now I can indicate that to the person.

------
duncanwilcox
Very Long HN Thread Expected to discuss VSRE to death.

------
rocky1138
The only thing I'd change with this is 'E' to 'O' for OK. "Expected" is just a
bit too pushy. What if I don't want to reply at all?

------
jere
Twitter?

Seriously though, I'd rather have this built into an email system than relying
on people to start understanding and following acronyms.

~~~
klodolph
Well, we already understand and follow RSVP, and that's not even English.

~~~
Goladus
That developed organically over many years. RSVP is an now a valid (if
peculiar) English word.

~~~
klodolph
Could you elaborate on "developed organically" and "many years"? It seems
apparent to me that at some point, someone used the word RSVP for the first
time without explaining what it meant. Perhaps by "developed organically" you
mean "it happened so long ago that it seems natural now?"

~~~
Goladus
No, I do not mean that it happened so long ago that it seems natural now. I
mean that no one ever had to force it unnaturally, unless in the context of a
larger and stricter school of etiquette such as the court of Louis XIV in
France.

The meaning of the term RSVP was precise and encapsulated well before the word
"RSVP" ever came into being. "Please Respond" is a common and well-understood
expression for an invitation and RSVP is merely a shortcut and clever
reference to specific school of French etiquette that used the phrase
"respondez s'il vous plait."

In contrast, VSRE encompasses both a new form of etiquette and a new acronym
that doesn't reference anything special.

------
davefp
Under what situation would a short reply not be acceptable?

Seems to me that VSRE/VSRO telegraphs what should be known anyway. I don't
like it.

------
gideon_b
Or you could finish with "A simple yes or no is fine" and prevent the
recipient from having to googling an acronym.

------
charlieok
How about a friendly footer: “Short, one or two word replies are not only ok,
they are much appreciated!”

------
EzGraphs
And in reply MVCE (Many Verbose Comments Expected).

------
magoon
I sometimes end emails/IM questions with "Yes/No?"

------
seivan
I'm a fan! I'll be using this.

------
cemdev
I just VSRE anyways.

------
KamiCrit
Ok.

------
mizchief
Do you still beat your wife? -VSRE

~~~
D-Coder
Mu.

(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative%29>)

------
wojt_eu
ok

------
lsiebert
good idea

------
andyl
In the early days of the telephone, there was some debate about the proper way
to start and terminate a discussion.

Many were fond of starting a discussion with 'ahoy', ending with 'that is
all'. Alas, 'hello' and 'goodbye' won the competition.

That is all.

~~~
jamesjporter
Now that I know this I am _very_ angry that 'ahoy' and 'that is all' didn't
carry the day.

~~~
thenonsequitur
Never mind what carried the day -- I'm adopting this protocol starting now,
convention be damned!

------
jeffehobbs
nnnnnnope

------
kefka
No.

------
leeoniya
not trying to be rude or to troll the author, but how does a post about a
personal acronym make it to the front page? HN's little mysteries :)

now just waiting for those downvotes...

~~~
endgame
You could probably call it a meat-level communication hack or something.

I like it, but I'd probably use it in the subject line. Similar to how some
people use <EOM> to signal that an email has no body.

Now let's see if it gains traction.

~~~
read
The trouble with EOM is that you still need to click on the email you received
to un-bold it. EOM or not, you are still opening it.

~~~
bluehex
If you read your email on a desktop, or from the the gmail website I would
definitely recommend learning the keyboard shortcuts so you don't have to
click. In just a few seconds I can star all the ones in my inbox that I plan
to read, and archive the rest including the EOM short mails. I do end up
archiving a lot of unread mail this way but that rarely bothers me when
searching for old mail.

