[Zope] [OT] subject headings/clarification

[Andy McKay]

> > 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.