On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:08:19AM -0500, Grady Brandt <gbrandt at Tampabayfederal.com> wrote: > Just to add my pointless currency to the pot... > Oh, and sorry for the inline responses, but since I'm responding to several > emails at once it feels more appropriate this way. Inline posting is preferred over top and bottom posting in the better internet neighborhoods, of which this is one. > > From: Steve Simmons [mailto:scs at di.org] > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:58:26PM -0800, Scott Schultz wrote: > > > Subject: [DRAGAERA] If Vlad fought Batman, who would win? > > I would much rather NOT have this. Subject lines are short enough that > > we don't need to suck up 11 characters just to indicate what's in the > > To: field. > Except you'll note that it isn't always in the To: field. Often, it's in the > CC: field, and theoretically it could be in the Bcc: field (though I'm not > sure the list software would take that very seriously). Neither of those > last two are visible in my accustomed view of my mail. The point is not to have it be visible to humans. The point is to have it visible to the mail client, which can be told what to do with it. > > From: David Dyer-Bennet [mailto:dd-b at dd-b.net] > > Nope, we don't want to do that. Perfectly possible, though, just to > > avoid dodging the technical question. > > Subject is not the best thing to use for sorting the messages into > > separate folders. You should use the List-Id: header. > This isn't (as far as I can tell) possible using Outlook's rule system. Of > course I can match on dragaera at dragaera.info in any of the destination > fields, but that's as much a band-aid as the subject line and doesn't have > the benefit of catching personal replies generated by the list. > Before I get any rotten produce about using Outlook, I have no choice at > this address and this is the only address I actually check on anything like > a regular basis. It is most certainly possible to match on the List-Id header in Outlook. Not that you should be using outlook, but I sympathize with people ruled by idiots who require it. If you meant Outlook Express, which is entirely different software, I don't use it -- but I honestly can't imagine it not being possible. > > From: Johne Cook [mailto:johne.cook at gmail.com] > > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:31:51 -0600, Mia McDavid <mia_mcdavid at comcast.net> > > wrote: > > It's not necessarily "wrong" and it's not even "different". I'm on > > lists that do things both ways. > Maybe it should be considered "wrong". In a list with the purpose of > discussion it doesn't make a great deal of sense to default to turning every > conversation into the equivalent of a whisper. True there way of judging > this as correct or incorrect, but I don't think it's very efficient and > efficiency seems as good a metric as any other in this instance. Ah, but how the list functions in this respect is a function of your email software. If your email software worked properly, the list's behavior would make sense. Unfortunately, Outlook is broken, and I believe unfixable wrt this problem. > > I wouldn't mind have [DRAGAERA] up in the Subject Header to make it > > easier to sort, but I can live with it the way it is. ymmv. > I would more than not mind, I would appreciate. Otherwise, I am of entirely > the same opinion, and am quite willing to carry on with the current > configuration. Subject tags are a waste of the time-space continuum. Do not advance the cause of entropy, sir! -- Homepage: http://matthew.infodancer.org/ Politics: http://triggerfinger.org/ Literature: http://speculativefiction.org/ Public Key: http://matthew.infodancer.org/public_key.txt