You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to modules-dev@httpd.apache.org by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2006/09/26 18:54:32 UTC
Add a [modules-dev] subject prefix?
I received a note that some users would appreciate distinguishing
notes with a subject line.
Most lists in the ASF don't do this for many good reasons, but I noticed
that many of our peer-user lists (and modules-dev is a developement-users
discussion) do so.
So thoughts? +/- to adding [modules-dev] or [modules-dev@httpd] to our
subject headers?
Re: Add a [modules-dev] subject prefix?
Posted by Konstantin Rozinov <kr...@llnl.gov>.
I'm for adding [modules-dev] to the subject line.
At 09:54 AM 9/26/2006, you wrote:
>I received a note that some users would appreciate distinguishing
>notes with a subject line.
>
>Most lists in the ASF don't do this for many good reasons, but I noticed
>that many of our peer-user lists (and modules-dev is a developement-users
>discussion) do so.
>
>So thoughts? +/- to adding [modules-dev] or [modules-dev@httpd] to our
>subject headers?
Re: Add a [modules-dev] subject prefix?
Posted by Mark Constable <ma...@renta.net>.
+1
On Wednesday 27 September 2006 04:07, Chris Kukuchka wrote:
> ...
> P.S. If the changing of the subject headers goes through, I would
> imagine we would then need a discussion on what it should be. I would
> go with the shorter the better school of thought with [hmd] as an example.
I agree. The main objection seems to be lack of Subject line
space and the need for the first 20 or so chars to be meaningful.
[hmd] prepended to the subject line would most likely be a good
compromise for both camps, those who want something to define
which, out of possibly many mailing-lists, this message belows
to but only adds 6 chars for those who need to view as much of
the subject line as they can.
[hmd] +2
For those against a prepended subject signature, please consider
that some of us are on many mailing-lists and which lists often
change (in my case, about a dozen at any one time) so setting up
filters is not all that reasonable for short term list involvement.
It's something that definitely helps newcomers know which incoming
emails belong to which list before they become familiar with clues
from thread subjects or list members.
--markc
Re: Add a [modules-dev] subject prefix?
Posted by Chris Kukuchka <ch...@sequoiagroup.com>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> So thoughts? +/- to adding [modules-dev] or [modules-dev@httpd] to our
> subject headers?
>
Count me as a plus (+) vote for adding to the subject headers. Having
the quick identifier makes it easier for low function mail clients (like
web mail or cell-phone mail) to screen messages.
Chris Kukuchka
Sequoia Group, Inc.
P.S. If the changing of the subject headers goes through, I would
imagine we would then need a discussion on what it should be. I would
go with the shorter the better school of thought with [hmd] as an example.
Re: Add a [modules-dev] subject prefix?
Posted by "Philip M. Gollucci" <pg...@p6m7g8.com>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> I received a note that some users would appreciate distinguishing
> notes with a subject line.
>
> Most lists in the ASF don't do this for many good reasons, but I noticed
> that many of our peer-user lists (and modules-dev is a developement-users
> discussion) do so.
Personally, I'm ABSOLUTELY against it. I use evolution, mail, pine, and thunderbird.
Sometimes I over IMAP, sometimes POP, sometimes neither. Some I have procmail some I don't.
I can't stand seeing nothing useful in subject as you only get like 80 characters or less
in the command line tools -- even the guis unless you have a high resolution or large monitor
and expand the window forever, you still can't see it.
Also, I only know of -commits lists and users@httpd that does this at the ASF.
I go to "great" lengths to strip them out when I've procmail available.
Finally, being a -dev list most people here while called users of the API would be technically
inclined.
Next you know, they'll be asking we can allow html messages for my fancy web based interfaces to render....
Just my 2cents.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip M. Gollucci (pgollucci@p6m7g8.com) 323.219.4708
Consultant / http://p6m7g8.net/Resume/resume.shtml
Senior Software Engineer - TicketMaster - http://ticketmaster.com
1024D/A79997FA F357 0FDD 2301 6296 690F 6A47 D55A 7172 A799 97F
When I call your name, Girl, it starts to flame
Burning in my heart, Tearing it all apart..
No matter how I try My love I cannot hide....
Re: Add a [modules-dev] subject prefix?
Posted by Joachim Zobel <jz...@heute-morgen.de>.
Am Dienstag, den 26.09.2006, 11:54 -0500 schrieb William A. Rowe, Jr.:
> So thoughts? +/- to adding [modules-dev] or [modules-dev@httpd] to
> our
> subject headers?
-
Sincerely,
Joachim
Re: Add a [modules-dev] subject prefix?
Posted by Jerry Stuckle <je...@smartechhomes.com>.
Add me as a +. I belong to several lists, and not having an identifier
makes it much more difficult to determine where it's going.
With a header my email client can sort it automatically.
Jerry
Re: Add a [modules-dev] subject prefix?
Posted by Jeremy Sowden <je...@azazel.net>.
Nick Kew wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 September 2006 17:54, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> > So thoughts? +/- to adding [modules-dev] or [modules-dev@httpd] to
> our
> > subject headers?
>
> Please don't. Subject lines should be meaningful. Especially in the
> first few words, which is what you see when they're truncated in a
> listing. A folder full of "[modules-dev] Re: pr" is not useful.
>
> I would suspect that anyone asking for crap in the subject line
> needs to rtfm procmail, or whatever other tools they have available.
> Sorting of incoming mail has been a solved problem for over 20 years.
And a '-' from me for the same reasons.
J.
--
+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+
www: http://www.azazel.net/
pgp: http://www.azazel.net/home/js_key.asc
+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+
Re: Add a [modules-dev] subject prefix?
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
On Tuesday 26 September 2006 19:45, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Nick Kew wrote:
> > I would suspect that anyone asking for crap in the subject line
> > needs to rtfm procmail, or whatever other tools they have available.
> > Sorting of incoming mail has been a solved problem for over 20 years.
>
> I agree with you, up until the introduction of webmail.
Huh? Are you saying there are webmail systems that don't support
sorting incoming mail into folders?
Shall I dig up my old 1997 mail-by-web stuff? That supported both
folders and spam-filtering (though the latter might not stand up
to today's spam levels so well).
> Since this list is ment to be accessible,
It's more accessible if we don't bugger up people's subject lines!
--
Nick Kew
Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book
http://www.prenhallprofessional.com/title/0132409674
Re: Add a [modules-dev] subject prefix?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Nick Kew wrote:
>
> I would suspect that anyone asking for crap in the subject line
> needs to rtfm procmail, or whatever other tools they have available.
> Sorting of incoming mail has been a solved problem for over 20 years.
I agree with you, up until the introduction of webmail.
Since this list is ment to be accessible, I'm weighing slightly more
heavily in favor of the user-subscribers over the diehard coding nutjobs
like you and I. We have tools that force lists to behave the way we
prefer because we live on the lists. Our casual readers, not so much.
If we are trying to be inclusive and attract more module authors (and
hopefully httpd contributors down the road) we need to be approachable.
That said, I'll sit back and read how this thread plays out.
Bill
Re: Add a [modules-dev] subject prefix?
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
On Tuesday 26 September 2006 17:54, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> So thoughts? +/- to adding [modules-dev] or [modules-dev@httpd] to our
> subject headers?
Please don't. Subject lines should be meaningful. Especially in the
first few words, which is what you see when they're truncated in a
listing. A folder full of "[modules-dev] Re: pr" is not useful.
I would suspect that anyone asking for crap in the subject line
needs to rtfm procmail, or whatever other tools they have available.
Sorting of incoming mail has been a solved problem for over 20 years.
--
Nick Kew
Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book
http://www.prenhallprofessional.com/title/0132409674
Re: Add a [modules-dev] subject prefix?
Posted by pc...@nostrum.com.
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 11:54:32AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Most lists in the ASF don't do this for many good reasons, but I
> noticed
On 2006, Sep 26, at 12:01, Mads Toftum wrote:
> which is why I'm -1 to polluting the subject - there's plenty of X-
> headers to work on.
I'm always a big fan of not modifying user-provided data (i.e.,
Subject:) and making sure the plethora of tools (which I thought was
close to 100% now-days) that can act on and display other headers (X-
*, etc) are recommended.
A big "-" to any subject header adding/modifying.
-p
Re: Add a [modules-dev] subject prefix?
Posted by Helmut Tessarek <te...@evermeet.cx>.
> which is why I'm -1 to polluting the subject - there's plenty of X-
> headers to work on.
This would be ok, if you always work with one mail client at home.
Since there are certainly several people like me who are working with several
mail clients (tb at home, pine over ssh at work, webmail,...), it would be nice
to see at a first glance that a certain mail belongs to a certain list.
But I agree, the shorter the better. (although you should see to which module
list the mail belongs.)
Here my voting:
[modules-dev] + good, but you can't see the type of modules
[modules-dev@httpd] - too long
[httpd-mod-dev] ++
--
regards Helmut K. C. Tessarek
lookup www.dfn-pca.de/pgpkserv/ for KeyID 0xC11F128D
/*
Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer for chaos and madness
await thee at its end.
*/
Re: Add a [modules-dev] subject prefix?
Posted by Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk>.
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 11:54:32AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Most lists in the ASF don't do this for many good reasons, but I noticed
which is why I'm -1 to polluting the subject - there's plenty of X-
headers to work on.
vh
Mads Toftum
--
`Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall