Re Subject line

[Pat Lashley <pa...@volant.org>]

--On Tuesday, September 14, 2004 16:26:54 -0400 Jim Maul <jm...@elih.org> wrote:

> Quoting Jeff Koch <je...@intersessions.com>:
>
>> I certainly agree with a simple [SA} prefix so that the SA emails don't get
>> lost and deleted with all the other stuff I get. However, this came up a
>> few months ago and the SA list nazis decided that we must be too stupid not
>> to have programmed our email clients to automatically sort our email. Those
>> of us in favor got voted down.

Calling people nazis isn't likely to get your point of view
to be accepted.

>> I think this is a majority rules - minority rights things. Not having a
>> prefix just makes it extra hard for many of us.

Bullshit.  One simple filter, and all of the list messages are
sorted into a different mailbox; making things -MUCH- easier
for you.  And there are just too damn many options for filtering
to claim a lack of ability to do so.  (Unless you're claiming
that you just don't understand how.  In which case a POLITE
request should get you the necessary help.)

> Since i wasnt on the list when the previous discussion was
> circulating, i checked some of the archives to get up to date
> on the topic.  I saw lots of "i think the prefix should be
> there" and "i think it shouldnt be there" types of posts but
> none that i could find actually stated why it should or shouldnt
> be there.  The closest i could find was someone saying something
> along the lines of the unnecessary prefix just makes subject
> lines longer.  while this is true, i hardly believe it to be
> a reason not to have it.

It can be a problem for people with limited display space for
the Subject: line.  The significant part can be pushed right
off the edge.

It can also be a problem for the 'Re' prefixing.  I've seen
messages where broken MUAs have managed to munge that to the
point where follow-ups wind up with multiple copies of the
[LIST] notation.

And it's a problem for messages which may for one reason or
another be forwarded to another list.  Again, I've seen cases
where several [LIST] notations have pushed the actual subject
content completely off the edge of the window.

And, of course, they're a huge pain for messages that are
(legitimately) cross-posted to multiple lists.


> Yes, i realize that the list can be filtered on the listid
> header.  This is what i am already doing.  However as has
> been pointed out on the list this is also subject to change,

And you think that the content of the [LIST] Subject: prefix
is any less liable to change?  Or just that you're more likely
to notice it when it doesn't get filtered into the right mailbox.

You might consider adding a filter for the existance of a List-Id:
header whose contents haven't been recognized.

> and as many of us found out, there hasnt even been a
> notification of this change neither before nor after the
> change was done. AFAICT there hasnt even been any acknowledgement
> from the list owner(s) that the recent listid header change
> was even made and for what reason.  The closest to this was
> a post from a list subscriber who stated that the @ sign is
> not supposed to be in the listid header.  But, we're all just
> basically guessing here.

The list maintainer may not actually be a subscriber; and may
therefore not know that the question has been raised.  It is
also possible that it was a side-effect of updating the list
software; and the list maintainer may not actually be aware of
the change.

> As also mentioned previously on the list, this is the first
> that i have seen to NOT include the prefix in the subject.

I subscribe to around 50 mailing lists; and only about half a
dozen of them use the obnoxious Subject: prefix; and those all
belong to one of two projects.

> While this is not a reason in its own to include the prefix,
> it certainly shows what is "usually"* done.

False assumption based on too-limited data.  Also, the practice
of adding Subject: prefixes arose before the creation and
standardization of the List-* headers; and should be deprecated
now that there's a markedly superior solution.

> Note also that the apache mailing list itself does indeed
> prefix the subjects.  One would think that ASF projects
> would try to standardize on this sort of thing.

Good idea.  The apache list should stop using Subject: prefixes.
(After a suitable warning period so folks have time to create
and test List-Id: based filters.)

> So until someone cant point out some valid reasons as to
> why the subject should not have the list prefix, im all
> for including it.

I think I've mentioned a few above.  (I'm assuming that you
won't consider "it's butt-ugly" as a valid reason... :-)



-Pat

Re: Re Subject line

[Satya <sa...@thesatya.com>]

On Sep 14, 2004 at 15:11, Kenneth Porter wrote:

>I suspect a lot of people don't recognize this issue because we've all
>become spoiled with big monitors and high resolution graphics cards. But
>there are still people reading their mail on PDA's and other small
>displays, and every pixel is precious. I also wonder what text-to-speech
>processing does with subject line decoration.

I read mine in an 80x2[45] ssh terminal.

(Anyone inviting me to change the terminal size or get a bigger screen
is invited to a) smeg off b) give me the money for the bigger screen.)

-- 
Satya. http://www.thesatya.com/
Help stamp out, eliminate and abolish redundancy!

Re: Re Subject line

[Kenneth Porter <sh...@sewingwitch.com>]

--On Tuesday, September 14, 2004 3:06 PM -0700 Pat Lashley 
<pa...@volant.org> wrote:

> It can be a problem for people with limited display space for
> the Subject: line.  The significant part can be pushed right
> off the edge.

I suspect a lot of people don't recognize this issue because we've all 
become spoiled with big monitors and high resolution graphics cards. But 
there are still people reading their mail on PDA's and other small 
displays, and every pixel is precious. I also wonder what text-to-speech 
processing does with subject line decoration.

> You might consider adding a filter for the existance of a List-Id:
> header whose contents haven't been recognized.

Cool idea. Gotta go implement that....