Re: [Zope] [OT] subject headings/clarification
Michel Pelletier <michel@digicool.com> writes:
everyone else are welcome to continue to discuss it and you don't need my consent or permission to do so.
My opinion: Putting the list name into the subject is totally redundant and ugly. Everybody who gets mailinglists will sort them into folders (at least). A mail client that is only able to filter for subjects is broken and shouldn't be used. There are many good mail clients out there, even for the Windows and Macintosh world, so there is nearly no excuse not to use them. Rigid corporate environments are out of course. Regards, Frank
On 11 May 2001, Frank Tegtmeyer wrote:
Everybody who gets mailinglists will sort them into folders (at least). A mail client that is only able to filter for subjects is broken and shouldn't be used.
And by what means you suggested to sort? Oleg. ---- Oleg Broytmann http://www.zope.org/Members/phd/ phd@phd.pp.ru Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.
* Oleg Broytmann <phd@phd.fep.ru> [2001-05-11 13:25]:
And by what means you suggested to sort?
By recipient (= To and Cc header) or do what I do and use the List-Id header. My procmail recipe: --cut-- :0: * ^List-Id: .*zope.zope.org in.zope --cut-- Cheers, Nils
On Fri, 11 May 2001, Nils Kassube wrote:
And by what means you suggested to sort?
By recipient (= To and Cc header) or do what I do and use the List-Id header. My procmail recipe:
--cut-- :0: * ^List-Id: .*zope.zope.org in.zope --cut--
I want to put zope- and zope-announce lists into one folder, and zope-dev into another. Those [Zope] et al help me much. Oleg. ---- Oleg Broytmann http://www.zope.org/Members/phd/ phd@phd.pp.ru Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 04:38:28PM +0400, Oleg Broytmann wrote:
I want to put zope- and zope-announce lists into one folder, and zope-dev into another. Those [Zope] et al help me much.
This is very easy with a simple addition to the regular expression. You simply look for an optional part (-announce). I don't understand how this could be easier with text in the subject header. It looks like the same amount of work, except that [Zope] in every subject line wastes precious screen space. :-) Cheers, Nils
On Fri, 11 May 2001, Nils Kassube wrote:
This is very easy with a simple addition to the regular expression. You simply look for an optional part (-announce). I don't understand how this could be easier with text in the subject header. It looks like the same amount of work, except that [Zope] in every subject line wastes precious screen space.
I didn't say it is impossible at all. I said it is possible, but [Zope] in subject makes it simpler. I don't consider this as "unneccessary redundant and ugly" :) Oleg. ---- Oleg Broytmann http://www.zope.org/Members/phd/ phd@phd.pp.ru Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.
On 11 May 2001 19:19:46 +0400, Oleg Broytmann wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2001, Nils Kassube wrote:
This is very easy with a simple addition to the regular expression. You simply look for an optional part (-announce). I don't understand how this could be easier with text in the subject header. It looks like the same amount of work, except that [Zope] in every subject line wastes precious screen space.
I didn't say it is impossible at all. I said it is possible, but [Zope] in subject makes it simpler. I don't consider this as "unneccessary redundant and ugly" :)
Well, technically speaking .. o It is unnecessary because there are at least two other headers you vcan sort on. o it is redundant for the same reason As for ugly, while I agree it does make for poor subject usage, and IIRC, non-compliant header munging, ugliness, as beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Bill
On 11 May 2001, Bill Anderson wrote:
Well, technically speaking .. o It is unnecessary because there are at least two other headers you vcan sort on. o it is redundant for the same reason
99% of the email users in this world have no idea how to filter mail, and they *don't want to know*. There's a reason why mail readers show only a minimal amount of headers, because that information is useless to anyone but the filtration-anal or a mail system administrator. Filtration is wonderful, I do it myself. But that visual information in the subject line that is "useless" to some is essential to most. -Michel
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 12:57:35PM -0700, Michel Pelletier wrote:
99% of the email users in this world have no idea how to filter mail, and they *don't want to know*. There's a reason why mail readers show only a minimal amount of headers, because that information is useless to anyone but the filtration-anal or a mail system administrator.
I doubt the percentage of non-filtering Zope list subscribers is anywhere near that high (I realize that you're probably exaggerating). Second, even the minimal amount of headers most mail readers show by default (To:, Cc:) is enough to filter the lists out. Filtering on To: and Cc: drops maybe 1 [Zope] message per week into my regular inbox. Any way we could set up a poll restricted to mailing list members to see how many people really care about this subject one way or the other? -- Mike Renfro / R&D Engineer, Center for Manufacturing Research, 931 372-3601 / Tennessee Technological University -- renfro@tntech.edu
I really dont see the problem: Advantage: - simple clear which list you are talking about. - filters people who reply directly to you rather than to the list (useful) Disadvantage: - 6 extra characters in the subject line What am I missing? -- Andy McKay. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Renfro" <renfro@tntech.edu> To: "Michel Pelletier" <michel@digicool.com> Cc: "Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org>; <zope@zope.org> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 1:09 PM Subject: Re: [Zope] [OT] subject headings/clarification
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 12:57:35PM -0700, Michel Pelletier wrote:
99% of the email users in this world have no idea how to filter mail, and they *don't want to know*. There's a reason why mail readers show only a minimal amount of headers, because that information is useless to anyone but the filtration-anal or a mail system administrator.
I doubt the percentage of non-filtering Zope list subscribers is anywhere near that high (I realize that you're probably exaggerating). Second, even the minimal amount of headers most mail readers show by default (To:, Cc:) is enough to filter the lists out. Filtering on To: and Cc: drops maybe 1 [Zope] message per week into my regular inbox.
Any way we could set up a poll restricted to mailing list members to see how many people really care about this subject one way or the other?
-- Mike Renfro / R&D Engineer, Center for Manufacturing Research, 931 372-3601 / Tennessee Technological University -- renfro@tntech.edu
_______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
On 11 May 2001 13:36:34 -0700, Andy McKay wrote:
I really dont see the problem:
Advantage: - simple clear which list you are talking about. - filters people who reply directly to you rather than to the list (useful)
This is far from limited to adding a non-conmformant header munging activity. Filtering ont he To/mailinst List headers will do _exactly_ the same thing, and those are there by nature. Adding the [foo] list identifier is redundant any way you look at it. As it is redundant, it is therefore unnecesary. Whether you or I like it or not, that is a fact.
Disadvantage: - 6 extra characters in the subject line
What am I missing?
The other lists? ;^) Evolution/Elm/Pine/procmail/mutt/netscape/Oulook Express/Outlook make it simple to set up filtering on the "To:" header. I'd wager that these clients/users account for more than '1%' of the Zope list users as some have tossed around. Some, such as Evolution, and I'd wager Outlook, can do it _automatically_ by selecting an option. No Knowledge Required. Of course, some people don't give a rats behind about standards, but then again, those same people shouldn't then complain about other people/companies violating standards. ;) I supose that we could make a Zope product to change the title of objects to include some sorting qualifier ... ;^)= Same principle. While I fully understand people not wanting to change their filters, it smacks of "well it has always been done this way, must be good let's not change it." And that sentiment doesn't sit well with me. But oh well, judging by previous polls, not many would participate, which would leave us with looking at the archives. There are more people complaining about the current setup than there are peole defending it (with any reasoning other than whining). Personally, I filter on the To and when available, the mailing list headers. As such, mail send directly to me stays in my inbox, and mail sent to the list goes to the list folder. By doing this, each list is in it's own, isolated view, thus providing me with easy visual separation of lists. In addition, it s easy to se email sent to me. This provides me with every single 'advantage' you listed, thus, from that standpoint, the subject munging provides none of your advantages (an advantage would mean the other method(s) do _not_ provide that capability), and still leaves us with your stated disadvantage. ;^) Bill
Advantage: - simple clear which list you are talking about. - filters people who reply directly to you rather than to the list (useful)
This is far from limited to adding a non-conmformant header munging activity. Filtering ont he To/mailinst List headers will do _exactly_ the same thing, and those are there by nature. Adding the [foo] list identifier is redundant any way you look at it. As it is redundant, it is therefore unnecesary. Whether you or I like it or not, that is a fact.
If you reply to this message, to me alone, Outlook Express will not allow you to filter on the headers. The only remaining identifier is the subject line.
Disadvantage: - 6 extra characters in the subject line
What am I missing?
The other lists? ;^)
Oh no more characters :)
Evolution/Elm/Pine/procmail/mutt/netscape/Oulook Express/Outlook make it simple to set up filtering on the "To:" header. I'd wager that these clients/users account for more than '1%' of the Zope list users as some have tossed around. Some, such as Evolution, and I'd wager Outlook, can do it _automatically_ by selecting an option. No Knowledge Required.
Of course, some people don't give a rats behind about standards, but then again, those same people shouldn't then complain about other people/companies violating standards. ;)
Ok lets not get off topic here.
I supose that we could make a Zope product to change the title of objects to include some sorting qualifier ... ;^)= Same principle.
What like putting a .html on the end of objects so programs like Dreamweaver and Go Live can read them? It happens.
While I fully understand people not wanting to change their filters, it smacks of "well it has always been done this way, must be good let's not change it." And that sentiment doesn't sit well with me.
No I believe its a case of it aint broke dont fix it. You simply have not convinced me it its broken. Your arguments seem based more on the fact that everyone should change their email clients because they can. I disagree with wasted effort when it will provide no return. Breaking 5,000 peoples email clients rules to satisfy a few people has to be one of the worst idea yet. That sentiment does not sit well with me.
But oh well, judging by previous polls, not many would participate, which would leave us with looking at the archives. There are more people complaining about the current setup than there are peole defending it (with any reasoning other than whining).
Really there's about 5 emails on this and even Im wondering why Im bothering replying. I think its just a simple case of people not caring enough to argue this point when I have more useful things...
Personally, I filter on the To and when available, the mailing list headers. As such, mail send directly to me stays in my inbox, and mail sent to the list goes to the list folder. By doing this, each list is in it's own, isolated view, thus providing me with easy visual separation of lists. In addition, it s easy to se email sent to me.
This provides me with every single 'advantage' you listed, thus, from that standpoint, the subject munging provides none of your advantages (an advantage would mean the other method(s) do _not_ provide that capability), and still leaves us with your stated disadvantage. ;^)
Wow great. Good for you. I get over 30 mailing lists. Some have subject headers. Sometimes i route on one thing sometimes another. They are all filtered into the right place. If one gets filtered incorrectly I can manually alter it just by seeing the subject. Cheers. -- Andy McKay.
On 14 May 2001 15:58:48 -0700, Andy McKay wrote:
Advantage: - simple clear which list you are talking about. - filters people who reply directly to you rather than to the list (useful)
This is far from limited to adding a non-conmformant header munging activity. Filtering ont he To/mailinst List headers will do _exactly_ the same thing, and those are there by nature. Adding the [foo] list identifier is redundant any way you look at it. As it is redundant, it is therefore unnecesary. Whether you or I like it or not, that is a fact.
If you reply to this message, to me alone, Outlook Express will not allow you to filter on the headers. The only remaining identifier is the subject line.
Andy, if I send message to you directly, there is no mailing list involved. Duh! I can just as easily say that "If I send you a reply, and delete the [Zope] part of the header, you don't get to filter on it, either." Once you pull it out of the mailing list, the policies of the list are irrelevant. ...<nit> you are still sorting on those headers, it is just that the mail didn't go _thorough_ the mailinglist, so it fell through the filter. ;) </nit> ...
But oh well, judging by previous polls, not many would participate, which would leave us with looking at the archives. There are more people complaining about the current setup than there are peole defending it (with any reasoning other than whining).
Really there's about 5 emails on this and even Im wondering why Im bothering replying. I think its just a simple case of people not caring enough to argue this point when I have more useful things...
That didn't exactly make sense ... and the number is greater than five; this happens avery few months or so.
Personally, I filter on the To and when available, the mailing list headers. As such, mail send directly to me stays in my inbox, and mail sent to the list goes to the list folder. By doing this, each list is in it's own, isolated view, thus providing me with easy visual separation of lists. In addition, it s easy to se email sent to me.
This provides me with every single 'advantage' you listed, thus, from that standpoint, the subject munging provides none of your advantages (an advantage would mean the other method(s) do _not_ provide that capability), and still leaves us with your stated disadvantage. ;^)
Wow great. Good for you. I get over 30 mailing lists. Some have subject
Same here. The POINT was that the stated advantages simply are not advantages, for they do not possess those qualities uniquely.
Andy, if I send message to you directly, there is no mailing list involved. Duh! I can just as easily say that "If I send you a reply, and delete the [Zope] part of the header, you don't get to filter on it, either."
I know that. Its a fact that I get a lot of replies where people email me directly as a result of a post on the list. Most mail clients preserve the subject line, hence it still it gets filtered which is what I want. I dont agree with people doing that, but hey they do.
That didn't exactly make sense ... and the number is greater than five; this happens avery few months or so.
First time Ive seen this discussion. Obviously managed to miss it before. Thats it last email. Im putting this to rest. -- Andy McKay.
This is intended as a humorous observation. Nothing more. On 14 May 2001 15:58:48 -0700, Andy McKay wrote: No I believe its a case of it aint broke dont fix it. You simply have not
convinced me it its broken. Your arguments seem based more on the fact that everyone should change their email clients because they can. I disagree with wasted effort when it will provide no return. Breaking 5,000 peoples email clients rules to satisfy a few people has to be one of the worst idea yet. That sentiment does not sit well with me.
Wow, if we put the two exaggerations together, by combining this one with the one that 99% of us don't use/want to use filters... the Zope list has 500,000 subscribers :) Look out everyone, here we come!!! :^)~ Bill (notes: the original 99% was for 'the world', but as there was not exception made for the somewhat technical userbase of Zope lists...the 99% remark was implied to be the same for the list;)
Wow, if we put the two exaggerations together, by combining this one with the one that 99% of us don't use/want to use filters... the Zope list has 500,000 subscribers :)
Look out everyone, here we come!!! :^)~
And I thought the list was busy recently :) Cheers. -- Andy McKay.
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 01:21:08PM +0200, Frank Tegtmeyer wrote:
Michel Pelletier <michel@digicool.com> writes:
everyone else are welcome to continue to discuss it and you don't need my consent or permission to do so.
My opinion: Putting the list name into the subject is totally redundant and ugly.
well, i use mutt in order to handle the huge volume of emails. but i pull mail from my pop3 server into a single folder without presorting via procmail as many others do. i like to be able to scan the subjects rapidly all in one folder and the only way to quickly distinguish which list a particular message pertains to is with those _ugly_ _outdated_ _useless_ subject line identifiers. it would make my life _much_ less productive if they went away... frankly, i would think other issues of subject line 'abuse' would be much more relevant than complaining about something that actually _helps_ even a few people. just another $0.02, er well, maybe $0.03... cheers,
Everybody who gets mailinglists will sort them into folders (at least). A mail client that is only able to filter for subjects is broken and shouldn't be used.
There are many good mail clients out there, even for the Windows and Macintosh world, so there is nearly no excuse not to use them. Rigid corporate environments are out of course.
-- charlie blanchard http://baldguru.com/ LosAngeles area Zope Users Group http://lazug.org
* Charlie Blanchard <charlie@blanchardsite.com> [2001-05-11 18:15]:
well, i use mutt in order to handle the huge volume of emails.
Good choice :-)
but i pull mail from my pop3 server into a single folder without presorting via procmail as many others do. i like to be able to
Why not? Learning procmail is easier than learning to program within the Zope framework. If you're smart enough to deal with Zope than you're smart enough to man procmailrc man procmailex If you get a lot of mail, it's worth the time.
scan the subjects rapidly all in one folder and the only way to quickly distinguish which list a particular message pertains to is with those _ugly_ _outdated_ _useless_ subject line identifiers. it would make my life _much_ less productive if they went away...
Nope. First add this line to your .muttrc: subscribe zope@zope.org Then see section 4.8, "Handling Mailing Lists" in the Mutt manual: --cut-- Now that Mutt knows what your mailing lists are, it can do several things, the first of which is the ability to show the name of a list through which you received a message (i.e., of a subscribed list) in the index menu display. --cut-- Cheers, Nils
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 11:22:04PM +0200, Nils Kassube wrote:
* Charlie Blanchard <charlie@blanchardsite.com> [2001-05-11 18:15]:
but i pull mail from my pop3 server into a single folder without presorting via procmail as many others do. i like to be able to
Why not? Learning procmail is easier than learning to program within the Zope framework. If you're smart enough to deal with Zope than you're smart enough to
man procmailrc man procmailex
If you get a lot of mail, it's worth the time.
been there, done that. found that i'm _more_ productive rapidly scanning all posts in a single folder rapidly and manually sorting them to the various folders or dustbin. if i let procmail send to folders first i find it less productive _for me_ to have to switch to each folder etc. etc.
scan the subjects rapidly all in one folder and the only way to quickly distinguish which list a particular message pertains to is with those _ugly_ _outdated_ _useless_ subject line identifiers. it would make my life _much_ less productive if they went away...
Nope. First add this line to your .muttrc:
subscribe zope@zope.org
Then see section 4.8, "Handling Mailing Lists" in the Mutt manual:
--cut-- Now that Mutt knows what your mailing lists are, it can do several things, the first of which is the ability to show the name of a list through which you received a message (i.e., of a subscribed list) in the index menu display. --cut--
thanks Nils, but i have found a different combination of .muttrc directives suit my working style, folder-hooks and such, i'm very much aware of mutt's list handling but have chosen a different approach _after_ trying them out. <g> cheers, -- charlie blanchard http://baldguru.com/ LosAngeles area Zope Users Group http://lazug.org
participants (8)
-
Andy McKay -
Bill Anderson -
Charlie Blanchard -
Frank Tegtmeyer -
Michel Pelletier -
Mike Renfro -
Nils Kassube -
Oleg Broytmann