I don’t know who would make this sort of decision, but could we put
[RubyTalk] or [Ruby] or something at the beginning of all messages? It’s
a
fairly common practice on listserves.
Hi,
In message “Re: subject line”
on Mon, 3 Sep 2007 07:48:25 +0900, “Devi Web D.”
[email protected] writes:
|I don’t know who would make this sort of decision, but could we put
|[RubyTalk] or [Ruby] or something at the beginning of all messages? It’s a
|fairly common practice on listserves.
It used to. But many claimed it’s uncommon and inconvenient in the
English speaking community, so we abandoned long ago. If you start
discussion, and people accept the change, we’d love to make it back.
But we’d have to coordinate with list-news gateway at least, when we
change.
matz.
But we’d have to coordinate with list-news gateway at least, when we
change.
I’m for it. It largely irritates me if there is no “tag” in the subject
line, since I have to parse the email more thoroughly to screen my
messages.
for what it’s worth, if you can filter yr emails by the “to” field,
they’re all addressed to [email protected] and can be grouped
quite easily. at least via gmail for me. 
RSL
Devi Web D. wrote:
I don’t know who would make this sort of decision, but could we put
[RubyTalk] or [Ruby] or something at the beginning of all messages? It’s a
fairly common practice on listserves.
Daniel Brumbaugh K.
Devi Web D.
[email protected]
Quoting Index of /pub/linux/docs/lkml/ :
It would increase the size of the Subject: line. This is a problem,
as it limits the amount of useful information that can be seen in the
Subject: line, making it harder to scan through a list of subject lines
looking for interesting subjects.
Mail can easily be filtered based on the “To:” line. This list has too
much volume not to be filtered (probably by everyone that uses it), so I
don’t see an advantage to adding [Ruby]. Further, I don’t want to give
up even six (really seven) characters that we can use to express
ourselves. Thoughts?
Dan
I personally don’t like a [Ruby]-tag in front of the subjects too.
I already have enough spam, don’t need to spam the Mail itself…
I think most of relevant data is already in the Mail-Headers, don’t need
to add
stuff which isn’t neccessary.
It’s even more rubyish without tag, imho…
Regards
Florian
list has too
much volume not to be filtered (probably by everyone that
uses it), so I
don’t see an advantage to adding [Ruby]. Further, I don’t
want to give
up even six (really seven) characters that we can use to express
ourselves. Thoughts?Dan
I completely agree.
Just to mention it: I don’t filter by the To header, I filter by the
X-ML-Name header, which is set to “ruby-talk” (much like your link to
kernel.org suggests).
Felix
Devi Web D. wrote:
I don’t know who would make this sort of decision, but could we put
[RubyTalk] or [Ruby] or something at the beginning of all messages?
No.
Dan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Devi Web D. wrote:
I don’t know who would make this sort of decision, but could we put
[RubyTalk] or [Ruby] or something at the beginning of all messages? It’s a
fairly common practice on listserves.
One more reason for objection: Many people use the [LABEL] notation for
categorizing specific messages for things like announcements [ANN] and
quizzes
[QUIZ].
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFG21h8WvapaOIz2YYRAjtpAJ9dErExHCPJ65sDloko2hVZ8/goHQCfStlQ
3pu/AaJqHnWCkj/sDIAcYhM=
=k1rN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 03.09.2007 07:41, Stefan R. wrote:
Devi Web D. wrote:
I don’t know who would make this sort of decision, but could we put
[RubyTalk] or [Ruby] or something at the beginning of all messages? It’s
a
fairly common practice on listserves.Another “No” vote here. As mentioned: you can always let your e-mail app
filter the mails for you and if you need it, let it insert that [Ruby]
or whatever prefix.
Most people are not aware of the possibility to filter automatically
by mail headers other than Subject, To or CC (as suggested,
X-ML-Name == “ruby-talk” or List-Id == “ruby-talk.ruby-lang.org”).
They sit and watch tons of Ruby-Talk mails filling their inbox
without filtering. They like to spend the day (or the evening)
manually tagging all mail with a special subject prefix like
“[Ruby-Talk]” and moving it to a folder, or, even better, read the
intersting ones and delete the others. It makes them happy and they
think, they had done a lot of work! They are scared of untagged
mail, because they could (or already have) inadvertantly delete
important inbox stuff trating it as mailing list stuff. That’s why
they want the prefix.
- Matthias
On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 07:48 +0900, Devi Web D. wrote:
I don’t know who would make this sort of decision, but could we put
[RubyTalk] or [Ruby] or something at the beginning of all messages? It’s a
fairly common practice on listserves.
I disagree. I think today’s mail clients should be expected to be able
to filter or tag on To:, Cc:, or List-Id:.
Devi Web D. wrote:
I don’t know who would make this sort of decision, but could we put
[RubyTalk] or [Ruby] or something at the beginning of all messages? It’s
a
fairly common practice on listserves.
Another “No” vote here. As mentioned: you can always let your e-mail app
filter the mails for you and if you need it, let it insert that [Ruby]
or whatever prefix.
Regards
Stefan
Dan Z. wrote:
don’t see an advantage to adding [Ruby]. Further, I don’t want to give
up even six (really seven) characters that we can use to express
ourselves. Thoughts?Dan
I usually find my self with 50-200 messages each day in my INBOX from
this
mailing list alone. My solution? Is I set my webmail to display messages
in
threads and colour code them. So that every message in my inbox from
this
mailing lists address is displayed in a Red highlight and neatly
organized. It
helps both with seeing that it. 0.) A Ruby-Talk message, 1.) Who said
what,
2.) replies and deletes, and 3.) Makes it faster to work through the
messages.
The A [Ruby-Talk] prefix would be nice if you use mailx as your primary
MUA
but most these days should support decent sorting, filtering, and
highlighting
features. And those are much more useful for dealing with Volume then
prefixing the subject lines. On the topic of filtering mails, there is
no need
to filter by Subject Line for that → Just use the other headers.
My primary mail system is www.ippimail.com using Squirrel Mail for the
web
interface. Best thing I’ve used since I used to use Mutt but without the
annoyance of creeps sending me fat E-Mails to my server box!
TerryP.
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 08:41:53AM +0900, Dan Z. wrote:
don’t see an advantage to adding [Ruby]. Further, I don’t want to give
up even six (really seven) characters that we can use to express
ourselves. Thoughts?
Thoughts:
Not everyone filters ruby-talk into its own “folder” in a mail user
agent. Some of us prefer to have all incoming email appear in the same
inbox list, but want to be able to filter by eye.
Considering even the typical CLI-only terminal has an 80-character
width,
I don’t see how six characters is such a deal-breaker. There’s
something
wrong if people are sending 70+ character subject lines, anyway.
Chad P. wrote:
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 08:41:53AM +0900, Dan Z. wrote:
don’t see an advantage to adding [Ruby]. Further, I don’t want to give
up even six (really seven) characters that we can use to express
ourselves. Thoughts?Thoughts:
Not everyone filters ruby-talk into its own “folder” in a mail user
agent. Some of us prefer to have all incoming email appear in the same
inbox list, but want to be able to filter by eye.Considering even the typical CLI-only terminal has an 80-character
width,
I don’t see how six characters is such a deal-breaker. There’s
something
wrong if people are sending 70+ character subject lines, anyway.
And your client of choice doesn’t support rewriting the subject as a
filter?
Regards
Stefan
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 08:41:33AM +0900, Phil wrote:
English speaking community, so we abandoned long ago. If you start
discussion, and people accept the change, we’d love to make it back.
But we’d have to coordinate with list-news gateway at least, when we
change.I’m for it. It largely irritates me if there is no “tag” in the subject
line, since I have to parse the email more thoroughly to screen my messages.
Ditto, a lot.
In other words, I’m also in favor of adding something like [RUBY-TALK]
to
the subject line on the mailing list.
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 09:42:46AM +0900, Travis D Warlick Jr wrote:
[QUIZ].
So . . . are we somehow prevented from adding [ANN] after [RUBY]?
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 07:22:40PM +0900, Matthias W??chter wrote:
important inbox stuff trating it as mailing list stuff. That’s why
they want the prefix.
Something tells me that those who object to the list software adding
[RUBY] to the subject line would also object to replies mysteriously
including an added [RUBY] in the subject line. As such, I think using
the possibility for adding that as a justification for preventing the
list software from doing so is a bad idea.
On Sep 3, 2007, at 1:12 PM, Chad P. wrote:
It used to. But many claimed it’s uncommon and inconvenient in the
Ditto, a lot.In other words, I’m also in favor of adding something like [RUBY-
TALK] to
the subject line on the mailing list.
I’m pretty sure that’s not what Matz was talking about. The messages
use to contain an id number in the header. This makes it easy to
reference old posts.
I’m fine with the old ids, but I seriously hope we never add
something like [RUBY-TALK]. That pushes the subject to the right,
hiding valuable information and it’s not needed in filtering, as many
have pointed out. That makes it a lose, lose change in my book.
James Edward G. II
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 11:40:54PM +0900, Arlen Christian Mart C.
wrote:
On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 07:48 +0900, Devi Web D. wrote:
I don’t know who would make this sort of decision, but could we put
[RubyTalk] or [Ruby] or something at the beginning of all messages? It’s a
fairly common practice on listserves.I disagree. I think today’s mail clients should be expected to be able
to filter or tag on To:, Cc:, or List-Id:.
I don’t think anyone was saying that MUAs shouldn’t be expected to be
able to filter emails. The problem is that not everyone wants to filter
and organize emails the same way you do. Some people like having a
single inbox with easily recognizable markers for different mailing
lists. Your kink is not my kink.