From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert Pluim Subject: Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ? Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 20:25:24 +0100 Message-ID: References: <4D0B24DA.2050201@gmail.com> <87ei8sae89.fsf@gnu.org> <87zkrg600j.fsf@gmail.com> <12023.1294167155@gamaville.americas.hpqcorp.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=35664 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PaCVz-0002yq-Bv for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Jan 2011 14:25:52 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PaCVt-0002GO-FX for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Jan 2011 14:25:47 -0500 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:37280) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PaCVt-0002GA-4g for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Jan 2011 14:25:45 -0500 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PaCVr-0007tm-Ae for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Jan 2011 20:25:43 +0100 Received: from lns-bzn-49f-81-56-191-143.adsl.proxad.net ([81.56.191.143]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 04 Jan 2011 20:25:43 +0100 Received: from rpluim by lns-bzn-49f-81-56-191-143.adsl.proxad.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 04 Jan 2011 20:25:43 +0100 List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Nick Dokos writes: > Štěpán Němec wrote: > >> FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects >> of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable >> (e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike >> [Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject: >> header space. >> >> I have never understood why anyone would like anything like that. >> > > Because I can scan my inbox at a glance and triage quickly. Here's what > I see (with mh-e in emacs as my reader): > (disclaimer: I've been seeing this argument for the best part of 20 years, I doubt I'm bringing anything new to the table, but I feel strongly about it) Triage is for *computers* to do, they're much better at it than humans. 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. > ... > 221+ 01/04 Štěpán Němec [Orgmode] Re: should the mail list be > splitted resp. sub-tagged ?< > writes: > Hi Torste > ... > > If I am in org-mode mode (so to speak), I'll look at it. If not, I will > skip it for now and get back to it later. > > Having the mailing list markers is indispensable to me. I belong to > quite a few MLs and the ones that don't have a marker are a PITA. > Shortening the marker is fine: eliminating it is not. > >> If you want to somehow treat the mails from this list specially, why >> don't you filter on the presence of the mailing list address in the >> headers, for example? >> > > Because all of that needs additional setup, both at the front end to do > the filtering and at the back end to make sure that I don't miss anything. > And that needs debugging and continued maintenance (and missed emails when > something goes wrong, which inevitably it will). I'd rather have the list > software take care of it. 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). Robert