Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?

[Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com>]

Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de> writes:

> Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> writes:
>> Triage is for *computers* to do, they're much better at it than humans.
>
> Then let your MUA strip the tag off for you and live a happier life.
>
>> Also, those markers in the subject are obnoxious and *really* annoying,
>> and take up valuable screen space.  Please don't clutter up the org-mode
>> emails for zero benefit.
>
> They are very valuable when you need to quickly check things from a
> computer where you don't have set up your filtering for instance.  Plus
> they are indispensable for everyone who decides to not filter mail into
> folders or anything like that.  They don't force you to not filter, so
> why should you force them to change their workflow?

Using your same argument from above, why don't they configure their MUA
to add the tag?  Why should I be forced to change my workflow to strip
it? (and the tags are not 'indispensable' for human triage: you can
display the To/CC or List-Id headers, which will contain org-mode as well).

>> org-mode list email has a List-Id header, the list software has already
>> taken care of it for you.  I fail to see how much can go wrong with
>> filtering on that, configure it once and you're done. (or read the list
>> via gmane, all nicely split out for you).
>
> This header is there for software to see, not for humans.  There is
> multiple redundancy in both the headers and the tagging of the subject
> line and this is what makes things resilient.  And yes, I read the list
> via Gmane/GNUS, but that doesn't mean everyone has to do it the same
> way.

Right, which is why I argue for the minimal simplicity of just setting
the header, and letting people take care of anything else they want to
do afterwards.

Anyway, I think we've reached the end of this discussion, it's
definitely not relevant to org-mode anymore.  Whoever maintains the list
will decide what they prefer.

Robert