Robert K.:
I vote against, basically because I believe the issue can
be solved differently (and people are actually doing it).
I vote against, as (a) I believe mailing list traffic should be either
sorted out based on the proper headers (my ~/.procmailrc snippet
below), (b) subject space is precious to me and © I find mass-tagged
subjects way less readable.
(I actually use mutt-ng and gmane.comp.lang.ruby.general to read/write
ruby-talk and, in general, Gmane wherever I can, but that’s a bit beside
the point.)
Note that the OP is using a gmail account which has
nice filtering capabilities (which I use as well).
Note: Having a @gmail.com address does not
mean one is using their webmail solution.
:0
- ^Delivered-To: mailing list /[a-z0-9_±]+
lists/$MATCH/
:0
- ^List-Id: .*</[a-z0-9_±]+
lists/$MATCH/
:0
- ^List-Id: /[a-z0-9_±]+
lists/$MATCH/
:0
- ^To: Multiple recipients of list </[a-zA-Z0-9_±]+
lists/$MATCH/
– Shot
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 08:59:09PM +0900, John J. wrote:
Respectfully, no, unless it’s very short. I suggest sort by the To:
line. If that is trouble, then your mail client needs to change, any
mailing list like this generates enough mail, that you need either a
dedicated e-mail account for the list and/or a mail client capable of
simple sorting rules.
Sorting by the To: line means that all the sorting you get is going to
be
two blocks of stuff – mailing list stuff and other stuff. That’s not
the most ideal sorting choice for most people.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Michael W. Ryder wrote:
The first time I used them was in a mainframe editor that used a
superset of them. You could go to the beginning of a file, skip 20
occurrences of a pattern, change the next 50 occurrences of a different
pattern, etc. This was a major improvement when you had to edit a
10,000 line file on a mechanical tty. In today’s multi-core, multi-GHz
personal computers something like this would not be too noticeable time
wise, but on a 60 cps tty the ability to do something like this was a
huge time saver.
I remember something like this in the text editors on Xerox CP-V and
earlier systems, but I don’t think they pre-date Unix.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFG3lwq8fKMegVjSM8RAurbAJ9QBbItA29/QRpBpqsQBs0DJmS1kwCaAp9e
0DgmkZ6dD3sqSvwR82uNcg4=
=Y5Y4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 09:24:57PM +0900, Robert K. wrote:
I vote against, basically because I believe the issue can be solved
differently (and people are actually doing it). Note that the OP is
using a gmail account which has nice filtering capabilities (which I
use as well).
The issue is being worked around in many cases by people who would find
an added identifier far more convenient. In some cases, that
work-around
involves spending more time on emails. In others (such as in my case),
it involves using settings that replace the originator’s email address
in
the inbox display with the list’s email address, which unfortunately
means I’m making a decision between two pieces of information I’d like
to
have available to me before I open the email – not ideal, but better
than nothing.
In other words, the issue isn’t being “solved” in all cases. It’s just
being mitigated for many of us, and often requires handling this mailing
list differently from other lists. If there’s a credible argument for
keeping things as they are, that’s fine – but please don’t just dismiss
the inconvenience suffered by others as “solved” because we’ve managed
to
live with it so far.
Plus, there is a certain chance that the header mangling conflicts
with various other forums that are interconnected with this mailing
list (notably comp.lang.ruby and the ruby forum). For these forums a
changed subject would be redundant because in a way they are
filtered already. So we would either have to live with those
redundancies or make gateways smarter to remove that tag again. I
don’t feel it’s worth the effort.
Unless someone can confirm that there’s any problem at all with subject
line editing by the list software, with regard to the forum and
newsgroup
gateways, I’m not inclined to consider that much of a valid excuse for
summary rejection of the idea. If someone can provide information to
the
effect that your hypothesized problem is actually relevant, however,
I’ll
definitely take that into account. Your mileage may vary.
Peter C. wrote:
So far I count about 7 or 8 definite nays and 3 or 4 ayes.
Don’t forget the “Oh noes!” 