[SPAMASSASSIN.ORG MAILING LIST SUBJECT TAG] - Subject Tag

[Geoff Dyment <ge...@searstravel.ca>]

If someone would be kind enough to tell me what I need to put in my
amavis/postfix/spamassassin in order to add the headers myself, I will
gladly do it and never post about it again. I just want my mail to sort - I
don't care how. But adding another 3rd party program just to do it doesn't
make much sense.

My only point is that if someone hates the "SA-Tag", they probably also want
to get rid of the "RE's" and the other garbage so they probably already have
a mechanism to get rid of it all. Not having tags just means the guys that
hate it still have their "Re:" removers and the guys that want it have to
add one. 

> There is more than one way to filter.  Don't do it on subject.  Do it on
> To:, From:, or a custom header, such as List-Id:.  We don't expect you to
be
> an expert.  We expect that you ask for help when needed -- instead <CHOP>

You missed one of the posts then. Our mail setup will let us filter based on
FROM and SUBJECT. Other filtering requires it to be a client side rule which
is bad. Outlook 2000/Exchange 5.5 is not that old and I suspect it's still
pretty common. I agree it's stupid that I can't filter on TO/CC. I'm not
THAT lazy.

Outlook Express actually does let you do it, but then again OE isn't a
corporate mailer.

I had no idea it was a huge debate (mac vs pc, ms vs linux). I'm actually
quite astounded.

Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Damian Gerow [mailto:freebsd@coal.sentex.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 4:21 PM
To: Geoff Dyment
Cc: spamassassin-users@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Subject Tag


Thus spake Geoff Dyment (geoff.dyment@searstravel.ca) [03/02/04 17:58]:
> I know that I'm not the only mail novice on the list that has no idea how
to
> mangle headers in transit to add/remove header/tags. We are not all
> dedicated Mail admins. But I'll keep all my mail in an unsorted mess to
save
> those 3 characters in your 40 char subject field. Although unless there's
> some simple regex rule that I can put in postfix or amavis, then you'll be
> rid of at least a few more of us evil non-experts.

There is more than one way to filter.  Don't do it on subject.  Do it on
To:, From:, or a custom header, such as List-Id:.  We don't expect you to be
an expert.  We expect that you ask for help when needed -- instead of
continuously arguing that you need the tag to filter, look at the
suggestions, ask for clarification, or ask for help.

Please, arguing that you can't filter without a subject tag is like saying
you can't leave your house because you're missing a shoelace.  I understand
that some folks (notably, OE users) are going to have extreme difficulty
filtering.  But for those who use a real e-mail client[1], this isn't that
big of a deal.

I have already asked the list moderators for their input on this subject, to
hopefully quash this moronic debate.

[1]This is not a jab at MS.  This is not saying that you made crappy
choices.  This is not saying that if it's not Linux, it's crap.  This is
saying that, IMHO, Outlook Express does not suffice on *any* desktop as a
mail client.  If Free is your perogative, check out Eudora, Thunderbird, and
Opera.  I'm sure there are plenty of others.  But OE just doesn't cut it.
IMHO.

Re: [SPAMASSASSIN.ORG MAILING LIST SUBJECT TAG] - Subject Tag

[Bryan Britt <be...@beltane.com>]

Sorry, I'm so behind on the list, but I wanted to reply to this one.  I
used Outlook (and Pegasus, and Netscape, and Eudora, etc etc.) for a
long time bouncing back and forth until I finally searched Download.com
and downloaded and installed every client they had.  and that was lots
of them.  I finally found an email client I liked. 

It is not only a great email client, it's also the only peice of
shareware in my 25 years behind a computer that I have registered. 
That's a considerable accomplishment because the software doens't even
disable after the 30 days.

At least one other person on this list uses it, it's called Rebecca.   
(Becky! for short)

Everything in that list on your website Becky can do.  The only
exception is that it won't purge attachments.  it will however build
them and put them in a seperate folder as files, making them really easy
to scan.  HTML mail can be viewed as HTML, HTML source, or converted to
text.   and it will strip scripts when you view using the IE component.

It will also save and read .eml files.  and is MAPI compatible.  The
programmer is also very responsive on bug and feature implementations. 
You can see it at http://www.rimarts.co.jp/  

You don't HAVE to use Outlook.  However admittedly other outlook
features including it's mutual embedding into the business apps of today
makes it very hard to get along without.  I use it for everything except
Email.  And Outlook hates that.


Bryan Britt
Beltane Web Services


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ICQ: 53037451
Bryan L. Britt                                        501-327-8558
Beltane Web Services, Conway, AR            http://www.beltane.com
~~~~~~~~~~Support Private Communications on the Internet~~~~~~~~~~



----------------------- Original Message -----------------------
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 13:39:58 +0100, Jens Benecke <je...@spamfreemail.de> wrote:

> <veröffentlicht & per Mail versendet>
> 
> Geoff Dyment wrote:
> 
> > [1]This is not a jab at MS.  This is not saying that you made crappy
> > choices.  This is not saying that if it's not Linux, it's crap.  This is
> > saying that, IMHO, Outlook Express does not suffice on *any* desktop as a
> > mail client.  If Free is your perogative, check out Eudora, Thunderbird,
> > and Opera.  I'm sure there are plenty of others.  But OE just doesn't cut
> > it.IMHO.
> 
> Yup. I agree. Outlook is today's virus petri dish, cannot quote properly,
> cannot thread properly, uses 8-bit characters in mail headers, etc etc etc.
> But recently some people have showed me things that most "other" clients
> seem to lack, which i can understand CAN be important for office use.
> See also www.jensbenecke.de/l-oe-en.php :)
> 
> I would really like you to show me a mail client that does those things.
> 
> For example, I've seen people save project related mails to the same
> directory where all the other project files are (as .EML). This makes
> sense, you don't want to seperate stuff where no seperation is really
> needed. A 4MB presentation with a 10k explanatory mail doesn't NEED to stay
> in your (and all the team members') mailbox, it can be put on a network
> share. 
> 
> Also, neither Mozilla nor KMail nor anything except Mutt is able to _delete_
> attachments from mails (AFAIK), which is actually part of the above
> problem.
> 
> This bug/wishlist has been in both Mozilla's and KMails Bugzilla for YEARS
> but it hasn't been implemented yet. And, frankly, it is THE one reason I
> occasionally SSH into our IMAP server and fire up Mutt on one of my
> Maildirs.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jens Benecke

Re: [SPAMASSASSIN.ORG MAILING LIST SUBJECT TAG] - Subject Tag

[Jens Benecke <je...@spamfreemail.de>]

<veröffentlicht & per Mail versendet>

Geoff Dyment wrote:

> [1]This is not a jab at MS.  This is not saying that you made crappy
> choices.  This is not saying that if it's not Linux, it's crap.  This is
> saying that, IMHO, Outlook Express does not suffice on *any* desktop as a
> mail client.  If Free is your perogative, check out Eudora, Thunderbird,
> and Opera.  I'm sure there are plenty of others.  But OE just doesn't cut
> it.IMHO.

Yup. I agree. Outlook is today's virus petri dish, cannot quote properly,
cannot thread properly, uses 8-bit characters in mail headers, etc etc etc.
But recently some people have showed me things that most "other" clients
seem to lack, which i can understand CAN be important for office use.
See also www.jensbenecke.de/l-oe-en.php :)

I would really like you to show me a mail client that does those things.

For example, I've seen people save project related mails to the same
directory where all the other project files are (as .EML). This makes
sense, you don't want to seperate stuff where no seperation is really
needed. A 4MB presentation with a 10k explanatory mail doesn't NEED to stay
in your (and all the team members') mailbox, it can be put on a network
share. 

Also, neither Mozilla nor KMail nor anything except Mutt is able to _delete_
attachments from mails (AFAIK), which is actually part of the above
problem.

This bug/wishlist has been in both Mozilla's and KMails Bugzilla for YEARS
but it hasn't been implemented yet. And, frankly, it is THE one reason I
occasionally SSH into our IMAP server and fire up Mutt on one of my
Maildirs.


-- 
Jens Benecke

Re: [SPAMASSASSIN.ORG MAILING LIST SUBJECT TAG] - Subject Tag

[Damian Gerow <fr...@coal.sentex.ca>]

Thus spake Geoff Dyment (geoff.dyment@searstravel.ca) [03/02/04 18:36]:
> If someone would be kind enough to tell me what I need to put in my
> amavis/postfix/spamassassin in order to add the headers myself, I will
> gladly do it and never post about it again. I just want my mail to sort - I
> don't care how. But adding another 3rd party program just to do it doesn't
> make much sense.

(You probably haven't gotten my private mailing, where I offered to help you
through this.)

> My only point is that if someone hates the "SA-Tag", they probably also want
> to get rid of the "RE's" and the other garbage so they probably already have
> a mechanism to get rid of it all. Not having tags just means the guys that
> hate it still have their "Re:" removers and the guys that want it have to
> add one. 

Not necessarily.  I get rid of multiple Re:/Aw: levels, but that's it.
Personally, I prefer to not have the tag in it, but I don't feel so strongly
as to actually procmail it out.

> You missed one of the posts then. Our mail setup will let us filter based on
> FROM and SUBJECT. Other filtering requires it to be a client side rule which
> is bad. Outlook 2000/Exchange 5.5 is not that old and I suspect it's still
> pretty common. I agree it's stupid that I can't filter on TO/CC. I'm not
> THAT lazy.

I also saw a post that said someone was able to do it server-side, but I
wasn't paying close attention.  You're right.