This mailing list is run by Gnu’s Mailman application. The default
configuration for Mailman adds a “[NameOfMailList]” prefix to the
subject of every sent email, e.g.
Subject: [Congregation] Tuesday’s Notes
This makes it very easy to sort out my inbox, and gives my spam
filter something to key on.
On the nginx mailing list this has been turned off, so I find it hard
to figure out why someone unknown is writing me about “bug?”, and
often find the list emails in my junk mail folder.
I’d like to have the setting turned back on; would that be OK?
Thanks,
Dan
–
Daniel T. Griscom [email protected]
Suitable Systems http://www.suitable.com/
1 Centre Street, Suite 204 (781) 665-0053
Wakefield, MA 01880-2400
On 5/16/13 3:41 PM, Daniel Griscom wrote:
hard to figure out why someone unknown is writing me about “bug?”,
and often find the list emails in my junk mail folder.
I’d like to have the setting turned back on; would that be OK?
Doesn’t List-Id header suit your needs?
–
Maxim K.
+7 (910) 4293178
List-Id isn’t shown in my inbox listing, so that doesn’t help me when
I’m scanning my inbox. Even when I open the email I have to scan the
headers to figure out just what the specific email is about.
All (almost?) of my other mailing lists follow this convention, which
makes sense since every email from the “nginx” mailing list has to do
with nginx, but few people bother to put “nginx” in the subject lines
of their posts. Without this there’s an assumed context for the
message that isn’t clear from the message subject.
So, personally I’d like to have it turned on, but if there’s a reason
to keep it off then that’s fine by me.
Dan
At 3:59 PM +0400 5/16/13, Maxim K. wrote:
On the nginx mailing list this has been turned off, so I find it
Professional Services | NGINX
–
Daniel T. Griscom [email protected]
Suitable Systems http://www.suitable.com/
1 Centre Street, Suite 204 (781) 665-0053
Wakefield, MA 01880-2400
At 9:18 AM -0400 5/16/13, Jim O. wrote:
I think what Maxim was alluding to is that any decent email client
will sort messages for you based on headers if you set it do do so.
This way you don’t need to scan your entire inbox for messages from
a particular list and the “assumed context” can be a somewhat safe
assumption.
OK; I haven’t seen an email client like that, but if that’s most
people’s experience then that’s fine by me.
Since you mention the conventions followed in other mailing lists,
and you read this one, perhaps you should note that top posting is
discouraged on this list, and messages are answered inline by the
developers (as your original one was). Just a thought.
OK, will do.
Dan
On 5/16/13 3:41 PM, Daniel Griscom wrote:
hard to figure out why someone unknown is writing me about “bug?”,
–
Jim O.
nginx mailing list
[email protected]
nginx Info Page
–
Daniel T. Griscom [email protected]
Suitable Systems http://www.suitable.com/
1 Centre Street, Suite 204 (781) 665-0053
Wakefield, MA 01880-2400
Am 16.05.2013 15:18, schrieb Jim O.:
I think what Maxim was alluding to is that any decent email client will
sort messages for you based on headers if you set it do do so. This way
you don’t need to scan your entire inbox for messages from a particular
list and the “assumed context” can be a somewhat safe assumption.
As an alternative, use a mail-server which supports server-side sorting.
For example using Sieve.
On 05/16/13 08:10, Daniel Griscom wrote:
List-Id isn’t shown in my inbox listing, so that doesn’t help me when
I’m scanning my inbox. Even when I open the email I have to scan the
headers to figure out just what the specific email is about.
All (almost?) of my other mailing lists follow this convention, which
makes sense since every email from the “nginx” mailing list has to do
with nginx, but few people bother to put “nginx” in the subject lines of
their posts. Without this there’s an assumed context for the message
that isn’t clear from the message subject.
I think what Maxim was alluding to is that any decent email client will
sort messages for you based on headers if you set it do do so. This way
you don’t need to scan your entire inbox for messages from a particular
list and the “assumed context” can be a somewhat safe assumption.
Since you mention the conventions followed in other mailing lists, and
you read this one, perhaps you should note that top posting is
discouraged on this list, and messages are answered inline by the
developers (as your original one was). Just a thought.
On 5/16/13 3:41 PM, Daniel Griscom wrote:
hard to figure out why someone unknown is writing me about “bug?”,
–
Jim O.
On 2013-05-16 16:07, Daniel Griscom wrote:
Sorry; I didn’t think my suggestion would be all that controversial.
As a data point, I checked through my email archive for Mailman-based
mailing list messages which had or didn’t have a [listName] subject
prefix:
-
2288 messages with a [listName] subject prefix
-
20 messages without a [listName] subject prefix, of which 15 were
nginx postings
I can’t believe that you’ve got what looks like 2000+ emails hitting
your inbox each day and you’re not using anything to filter them into
folders.
I’ve got to the point now where I perhaps have 3-4 emails a week into my
inbox but 1000’s scattered into various folders for mailing lists and
even down to certain people having their own filters.
Personally I don’t mind if the subject has the mailman [listname] or
not, as long as there’s some way for me to filter it.
Filtering into folders also means I can choose when I want to look at
certain emails. I may want to read one from my accountant, about my tax
return, before scanning through the kernel mailing list or nginx for
example.
At 3:34 PM +0200 5/16/13, Ren Neumann wrote:
Am 16.05.2013 15:18, schrieb Jim O.:
I think what Maxim was alluding to is that any decent email client will
sort messages for you based on headers if you set it do do so. This way
you don’t need to scan your entire inbox for messages from a particular
list and the “assumed context” can be a somewhat safe assumption.
As an alternative, use a mail-server which supports server-side sorting.
For example using Sieve.
Sorry; I didn’t think my suggestion would be all
that controversial. As a data point, I checked
through my email archive for Mailman-based
mailing list messages which had or didn’t have a
[listName] subject prefix:
-
2288 messages with a [listName] subject prefix
-
20 messages without a [listName] subject
prefix, of which 15 were nginx postings
So, omitting the prefix is an unusual choice, but
if it’s necessary then that’s fine.
Thanks for responding,
Dan
–
Daniel T. Griscom [email protected]
Suitable Systems http://www.suitable.com/
1 Centre Street, Suite 204 (781) 665-0053
Wakefield, MA 01880-2400
Why you don’t simply filter by adress?
[email protected] seems pretty unique to me …
Am 16.05.2013 18:02, schrieb mex:
inb4 server-based-filters: not always an option in a company-environment or
with hosted mails.
what’s comfortable for alice is not always fine for bob.
That’s true, of course. My thoughts were just along the line of “people
caring about webservers have a higher probability of running (or being
able to run) their own mailserver”. And also I just wanted to point out
an alternative, when you happen to have a client without filters (like
webmail).
+1
i use a normal email-client in the office that sorts nginx-ml-mails (and
any
other ml i’m subscribed
to) into folders, but when i’m abroad or in a client’s office i’m
usually
use a webmail-client, and skimming
over my mails is much easier with an [nginx]; a mail-subject like
“Debian
Package” could also
be from a customer, while “[nginx] Debian Package” would kinda be
ignored.
or something like
" bug?"
inb4 server-based-filters: not always an option in a company-environment
or
with hosted mails.
what’s comfortable for alice is not always fine for bob.
my 2 cent
regards,
mex
Posted at Nginx Forum:
Hello!
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:07:28AM -0400, Daniel Griscom wrote:
Sorry; I didn’t think my suggestion would be all that controversial.
So, omitting the prefix is an unusual choice, but if it’s necessary
then that’s fine.
From about 10 mailing lists I’m subscribed to (nginx, memcached,
mercurial, various freebsd lists, …) only nginx-announce@ and
nginx-ru-announce@ has prefix added. So from my point of view
prefix isn’t something common, and mostly used for low-traffic
lists.
Overral I don’t think that adding a prefix for nginx@ (nginx-ru@,
nginx-devel@) will make me happy.
–
Maxim D.
http://nginx.org/en/donation.html