17 Nov
2015
17 Nov
'15
7:54 a.m.
Hello,
By any chance could someone configure the mailing list to add [cctalk]
or [cc] or [cct] into the beginning of the subject line? Not looking to
filter, just not looking to delete messages.
--
Ethan O'Toole
17 Nov
17 Nov
9:02 a.m.
To add to that, will people please stop using BCC: for the classicCMP address.
10:06 a.m.
On 11/17/15 7:54 AM, ethan at 757.org wrote:
Hello,
By any chance could someone configure the mailing list to add [cctalk] or [cc] or
[cct] into the beginning of the subject line?
If you do this, please do the same for cctech, and make sure messages go out from the
correct source on cross-posted messages
(ie. "[cctalk] foo" on cctech), so I can simplify my dups filters.
10:16 a.m.
This would be helpful, and consistent with many other mailing lists. I use filters to
direct traffic from my many mailing list subscriptions into appropriate sub-folders
outside my main inbox. I filter this list based on addressing, but sorting based on a
consistent tag in the subject line may be more reliable.
--
Mark J. Blair, NF6X <nf6x at nf6x.net>
http://www.nf6x.net/
10:32 a.m.
Hi Mark,
"Mark J. Blair" <nf6x at nf6x.net> wrote:
This would be helpful, and consistent with many other
mailing lists.
I use filters to direct traffic from my many mailing list
subscriptions into appropriate sub-folders outside my main inbox. I
filter this list based on addressing, but sorting based on a
consistent tag in the subject line may be more reliable.
There is one reliable header:
List-Id: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk.classiccmp.org>
Just use that and you'll be fine... No Subject prefixing needed at
all.
I use it for grouping mails from different lists in different folders
and it works 100%.
Oliver
12:02 p.m.
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Mark J. Blair wrote:
This would be helpful, and consistent with many other
mailing lists. I
use filters to direct traffic from my many mailing list subscriptions
into appropriate sub-folders outside my main inbox. I filter this list
based on addressing, but sorting based on a consistent tag in the
subject line may be more reliable.
Periodically, this is suggested. And, so far previously, rejected.
A few folk oppose it because THEY don't need it because THEIR mail
programs are successfully sorting by the header line of:
"List-Id: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk.classiccmp.org>"
A few oppose it because it will add another half a dozen to a dozen
characters to already growing subject lines, and people might eventually
have to start trimming some of the RE: Re: RE: from the subject line.
I would find it convenient to have a visual indication "[CC]" of which
messages are from the list[s] V which are similar subject lines from other
sources. But, I can live with it either way, so it becomes an issue to be
decided by who feels strongest about their needs.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
12:40 p.m.
Ah, one of the top ten topics that keeps resurfacing periodically.
I initially suggested adding the list name to the subject, and the strong
sentiment from the group was not to add it.
The pros and cons seem to be a bit of a religious war. And from time to time
someone (re)suggests this and the war rages again for a while ;)
Yes, the two lists will be rejoined as one list. I haven't found a roundtuit
yet.
J
10:30 a.m.
On 11/17/2015 12:06 PM, Al Kossow wrote:
On 11/17/15 7:54 AM, ethan at 757.org wrote:
Amen to that, brother. The duplicates drive me nuts.
Hello,
By any chance could someone configure the mailing list to add
[cctalk] or [cc] or [cct] into the beginning of the subject line?
If you do this, please do the same for cctech, and make sure messages go
out from the correct source on cross-posted messages
(ie. "[cctalk] foo" on cctech), so I can simplify my dups filters.
11:46 a.m.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Jay Jaeger <cube1 at charter.net> wrote:
On 11/17/2015 12:06 PM, Al Kossow wrote:
What gets duplicated? Are you subscribed to both -talk and -tech at one
time?
--
Eric Christopherson
On 11/17/15 7:54 AM, ethan at 757.org wrote:
Amen to that, brother. The duplicates drive me nuts.
Hello,
By any chance could someone configure the mailing list to add
[cctalk] or [cc] or [cct] into the beginning of the subject line?
If you do this, please do the same for cctech, and make sure messages go
out from the correct source on cross-posted messages
(ie. "[cctalk] foo" on cctech), so I can simplify my dups filters.
11:54 a.m.
On 11/17/15 11:46 AM, Eric Christopherson wrote:
What gets duplicated? Are you subscribed to both -talk
and -tech at one
time?
Yes, they were two separate lists at one point, then someone decided to start
forwarding messages between the two, and other people started posting replies
to the wrong list. All of the replies to the post about the collection being
given away was from cctalk, but the actual message was posted on cctech. You
can't effectively filter out the crap from the other list because the headers
being sent through aren't always right. I lost the original collection msg
because my filter thought it had been sent from cctalk and forwarded to cctech.
There was a discussion about getting rid of one or the other list.
I wish someone would just DO IT.
12:32 p.m.
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Al Kossow wrote:
Yes, they were two separate lists at one point, then
someone decided to
start forwarding messages between the two, and other people started
posting replies to the wrong list. All of the replies to the post about
the collection being given away was from cctalk, but the actual message
was posted on cctech. You can't effectively filter out the crap from the
other list because the headers being sent through aren't always right. I
lost the original collection msg because my filter thought it had been
sent from cctalk and forwarded to cctech.
There was a discussion about getting rid of one or the other list.
I wish someone would just DO IT.
If I recall correctly (unrefreshed dynamic wetware RAM), it was not two
separate lists. CCTECH was a subset of CCTALK. CCTECH was to be ON-topic
ONLY, with CCTALK quite a bit looser, to be able to devolve into
determining location from ham radio callsigns, etc. Everything posted to
CCTECH was echoed on CCTALK. A participant needed only to subscribe to
one list, depending on how tolerant they wanted to be about off-topic
tangents.
Then there was a horrible crash. It was neither Y2K, nor winter solctice
2012, but the entire universe came to an end, and there was NO list
traffic at all! Heroic efforts were made, and the list[s] were brought
back to life!
But nobody could manage to successfully replicate the previous
configuration, and all the king's horsemen and all the king's men could
not put it back together again. Posts to CCTECH did get forwarded to
CCTALK, and posts to CCTALK that were deemed to be ON-topic did get
forwarded to CCTECH, and those foolish enough to be subscribed to both
lists did get two copies. But, then the posts to CCTALK that were deemed
worthy to be copied by CCTECH also got automagically forwarded back to
CCTALK. When people posted to both lists, or replied to a post to both
lists, or didn't pay attention to what they were doing, there were
duplicates, and duplicates of duplicates, and sometimes duplicates of
duplicates of duplicates.
The list management have strived valiantly to repair the system, and have
gotten pretty close, but it may never be quite as it was in the good ol'
days..
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
4:12 p.m.
On 17/11/2015 20:32, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Al Kossow wrote:
> Yes, they were two separate lists at one point, then someone decided
> to start forwarding messages between the two
I don't think so. I was one of the first few dozen subscribers and my
recollection matches Fred's:
If I recall correctly (unrefreshed dynamic wetware
RAM), it was not two
separate lists. CCTECH was a subset of CCTALK. CCTECH was to be
ON-topic ONLY, with CCTALK quite a bit looser, to be able to devolve
into determining location from ham radio callsigns, etc. Everything
posted to CCTECH was echoed on CCTALK. A participant needed only to
subscribe to one list, depending on how tolerant they wanted to be about
off-topic tangents.
At the risk of resurrecting yet another old topic, do we really need
both lists?
(Sorry, Jay, I know you already put a lot of effort in and don't have
time for this :-))
--
Pete
4:32 p.m.
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, Pete Turnbull wrote:
At the risk of resurrecting yet another old topic, do
we really need both
lists?
I think so.
For example,
"Re: Giving away collection of computers"
has turned into discussion and meetings of hams. That would defintitely
not belong on CCTECH, but seems to be a reasonable tangent for CCTALK.
Besides guns, cars, etc., CCTALK has quite a few discussions that are not
really ON-topic, but do seem to involve a fair number of overlaps in
interests between the folk here.
While we don't want to be a support forum for current hardware, there
would seem to be a lot of subjects for which it would be difficult to be
sure about where the line falls as to being on-topic. The presence of
CCTALK reduces the need for rigidity in that enforcement. But, there are
other folk who would prefer a very rigid enforcement.
(Sorry, Jay, I know you already put a lot of effort in
and don't have time
for this :-))
Could we just agree to let Jay make the decisions on such trivia?
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
5:17 p.m.
On 11/17/2015 07:32 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, Pete Turnbull wrote:
Yes, let the benevolent (guy who should act like) dictator call the
shots...
:)
--
--- Dave Woyciesjes
--- ICQ# 905818
--- CompTIA A+ Certified IT Tech -http://certification.comptia.org/
--- HDI Certified Support Center Analyst -http://www.ThinkHDI.com/
Registered Linux user number 464583
"Computers have lots of memory but no imagination."
"The problem with troubleshooting is that trouble shoots back."
- from some guy on the internet.
At the risk of resurrecting yet another old
topic, do we really need
both lists?
I think so.
For example,
"Re: Giving away collection of computers"
has turned into discussion and meetings of hams. That would defintitely
not belong on CCTECH, but seems to be a reasonable tangent for CCTALK.
Besides guns, cars, etc., CCTALK has quite a few discussions that are
not really ON-topic, but do seem to involve a fair number of overlaps in
interests between the folk here.
While we don't want to be a support forum for current hardware, there
would seem to be a lot of subjects for which it would be difficult to be
sure about where the line falls as to being on-topic. The presence of
CCTALK reduces the need for rigidity in that enforcement. But, there
are other folk who would prefer a very rigid enforcement.
(Sorry, Jay, I know you already put a lot of
effort in and don't have
time for this :-))
Could we just agree to let Jay make the decisions on such
trivia?
18 Nov
18 Nov
2:11 a.m.
On 2015-11-17 21:32, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Al Kossow wrote:
Quite honestly, if you ask me, it didn't work in the good old days either.
Johnny
Yes, they were two separate lists at one point,
then someone decided
to start forwarding messages between the two, and other people started
posting replies to the wrong list. All of the replies to the post
about the collection being given away was from cctalk, but the actual
message was posted on cctech. You can't effectively filter out the
crap from the other list because the headers being sent through aren't
always right. I lost the original collection msg because my filter
thought it had been sent from cctalk and forwarded to cctech.
There was a discussion about getting rid of one or the other list.
I wish someone would just DO IT.
If I recall correctly (unrefreshed dynamic wetware RAM), it was not two
separate lists. CCTECH was a subset of CCTALK. CCTECH was to be
ON-topic ONLY, with CCTALK quite a bit looser, to be able to devolve
into determining location from ham radio callsigns, etc. Everything
posted to CCTECH was echoed on CCTALK. A participant needed only to
subscribe to one list, depending on how tolerant they wanted to be about
off-topic tangents.
Then there was a horrible crash. It was neither Y2K, nor winter
solctice 2012, but the entire universe came to an end, and there was NO
list traffic at all! Heroic efforts were made, and the list[s] were
brought back to life!
But nobody could manage to successfully replicate the previous
configuration, and all the king's horsemen and all the king's men could
not put it back together again. Posts to CCTECH did get forwarded to
CCTALK, and posts to CCTALK that were deemed to be ON-topic did get
forwarded to CCTECH, and those foolish enough to be subscribed to both
lists did get two copies. But, then the posts to CCTALK that were
deemed worthy to be copied by CCTECH also got automagically forwarded
back to CCTALK. When people posted to both lists, or replied to a post
to both lists, or didn't pay attention to what they were doing, there
were duplicates, and duplicates of duplicates, and sometimes duplicates
of duplicates of duplicates.
The list management have strived valiantly to repair the system, and
have gotten pretty close, but it may never be quite as it was in the
good ol' days.. 
3:04 a.m.
I think the most important thing is the system works. Duplicates are annoying but I'll
take that over not getting my messages at all.
On Nov 18, 2015, at 4:11 AM, Johnny Billquist <bqt
at update.uu.se> wrote:
On 2015-11-17 21:32, Fred Cisin wrote:
Quite honestly, if you ask me, it didn't work in the good old days either.
Johnny
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Al Kossow wrote:
Yes, they were two separate lists at one point, then someone decided
to start forwarding messages between the two, and other people started
posting replies to the wrong list. All of the replies to the post
about the collection being given away was from cctalk, but the actual
message was posted on cctech. You can't effectively filter out the
crap from the other list because the headers being sent through aren't
always right. I lost the original collection msg because my filter
thought it had been sent from cctalk and forwarded to cctech.
There was a discussion about getting rid of one or the other list.
I wish someone would just DO IT.
If I recall correctly (unrefreshed dynamic wetware RAM), it was not two
separate lists. CCTECH was a subset of CCTALK. CCTECH was to be
ON-topic ONLY, with CCTALK quite a bit looser, to be able to devolve
into determining location from ham radio callsigns, etc. Everything
posted to CCTECH was echoed on CCTALK. A participant needed only to
subscribe to one list, depending on how tolerant they wanted to be about
off-topic tangents.
Then there was a horrible crash. It was neither Y2K, nor winter
solctice 2012, but the entire universe came to an end, and there was NO
list traffic at all! Heroic efforts were made, and the list[s] were
brought back to life!
But nobody could manage to successfully replicate the previous
configuration, and all the king's horsemen and all the king's men could
not put it back together again. Posts to CCTECH did get forwarded to
CCTALK, and posts to CCTALK that were deemed to be ON-topic did get
forwarded to CCTECH, and those foolish enough to be subscribed to both
lists did get two copies. But, then the posts to CCTALK that were
deemed worthy to be copied by CCTECH also got automagically forwarded
back to CCTALK. When people posted to both lists, or replied to a post
to both lists, or didn't pay attention to what they were doing, there
were duplicates, and duplicates of duplicates, and sometimes duplicates
of duplicates of duplicates.
The list management have strived valiantly to repair the system, and
have gotten pretty close, but it may never be quite as it was in the
good ol' days..
17 Nov
17 Nov
4:54 p.m.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015, Al Kossow wrote:
On 11/17/15 11:46 AM, Eric Christopherson wrote:
Oh, OK. I know I didn't get the original offer email; but I'm actually
on cctalk. I thought that would get me all the messages, but I guess
not.
What gets duplicated? Are you subscribed to both
-talk and -tech at one
time?
Yes, they were two separate lists at one point, then someone decided to start
forwarding messages between the two, and other people started posting replies
to the wrong list. All of the replies to the post about the collection being
given away was from cctalk, but the actual message was posted on cctech. You
can't effectively filter out the crap from the other list because the headers
being sent through aren't always right. I lost the original collection msg
because my filter thought it had been sent from cctalk and forwarded to cctech.
There was a discussion about getting rid of one or the other list.
I wish someone would just DO IT.
--
Eric Christopherson
7:02 p.m.
On November 17, 2015 10:06:06 AM PST, Al Kossow <aek at bitsavers.org> wrote:
On 11/17/15 7:54 AM, ethan at 757.org wrote:
I thought cctalk and cctech were finally merged. Is this not true?
--
David Griffith
dave at 661.org
Hello,
By any chance could someone configure the mailing list to add
[cctalk] or [cc]
or [cct] into the beginning of the subject line?
If you do this, please do the same for cctech, and make sure messages
go out from the correct source on cross-posted messages
(ie. "[cctalk] foo" on cctech), so I can simplify my dups filters. 
4:45 p.m.
On Nov 17, 2015, at 7:54 AM, ethan at 757.org wrote:
Hello,
By any chance could someone configure the mailing list to add [cctalk] or [cc] or [cct]
into the beginning of the subject line? Not looking to filter, just not looking to delete
messages.
--
Ethan O'Toole
Better yet, leave it alone. The correct solution is for people to filter their email.
It?s better to have more characters that actually mean something show up in the subject
line.
Zane
18 Nov
18 Nov
1:12 p.m.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 04:45:05PM -0800, Zane Healy wrote:
Better yet, leave it alone. The correct solution is
for people to filter
their email. It?s better to have more characters that actually mean
something show up in the subject line.
I'll second that motion. :-)
--
Kevin
http://www.RawFedDogs.net
http://www.Lassie.xyz
http://www.WacoAgilityGroup.org
Bruceville, TX
What's the definition of a legacy system? One that works!
Errare humanum est, ignoscere caninum.
17 Nov
17 Nov
5:06 p.m.
On 11/17/2015 10:54 AM, ethan at 757.org wrote:
Hello,
By any chance could someone configure the mailing list to add
[cctalk] or [cc] or [cct] into the beginning of the subject line? Not
looking to filter, just not looking to delete messages.
This has been discussed _too_ many times... Please don't bring it up
again....
Just setup a filter to shuffle CC stuff to it's own folder, then nuke
it from there...
--
--- Dave Woyciesjes
--- ICQ# 905818
--- CompTIA A+ Certified IT Tech -http://certification.comptia.org/
--- HDI Certified Support Center Analyst -http://www.ThinkHDI.com/
Registered Linux user number 464583
"Computers have lots of memory but no imagination."
"The problem with troubleshooting is that trouble shoots back."
- from some guy on the internet.
18 Nov
18 Nov
1:28 a.m.
New subject: Could someone make the list do the thing in the subject line?
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, ethan at 757.org wrote:
By any chance could someone configure the mailing
list to add or [cc] or
[cct] into the beginning of the subject line? Not looking to filter, just not
looking to delete messages.
I *hate* modified subject lines, and I *hate* subjects that don't match
the contents of the post, so I'm against this.
There are enough possibilities to filter/sort Classiccmp mails; just have
a look at some of the mail headers. So make a procmail/Sieve/whatever rule
and sort the Classiccmp mails into another folder automatically. There is
really no need to touch the subject.
Christian
2:05 a.m.
New subject: [cctalk] was: Could someone make the list do the thing in the subject line?
Hello all,
unfortunately a lot of people *hate* things already. As I am subscribed
to a lot of lists (about 10), this is the only one not using a [header]
in the subject lines.
Modified subject lines are like Re: Re: Re: foobar. people tend to
forget that the subject of a message has changed, but the subject line not.
And to trigger yet another trollbait, top or bottom posting is also
bad/good ;-)
On 18-11-15 10:28, Christian Corti wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, ethan at 757.org wrote:
--
Met vriendelijke Groet,
Simon Claessen
drukknop.nl
By any chance could someone configure the
mailing list to add or [cc]
or [cct] into the beginning of the subject line? Not looking to
filter, just not looking to delete messages.
I *hate* modified subject lines, and I *hate* subjects that don't match
the contents of the post, so I'm against this.
There are enough possibilities to filter/sort Classiccmp mails; just
have a look at some of the mail headers. So make a
procmail/Sieve/whatever rule and sort the Classiccmp mails into another
folder automatically. There is really no need to touch the subject.
Christian
8:55 a.m.
New subject: [cctalk] was: Could someone make the list do the thing in the subject line?
On 11/18/2015 04:05 AM, simon wrote:
Hello all,
unfortunately a lot of people *hate* things already. As I
am subscribed to a lot of lists (about 10), this is the
only one not using a [header] in the subject lines.
I use Thunderbird, and the filter is set for :
To: contains cctalk
To: contains cctech
cc: contains cctalk
This seems to catch all variants of the messages and put
them in their folder.
Jon
1:25 p.m.
New subject: Could someone make the list do the thing in the subject line?
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:05:13AM +0100, simon wrote:
As I am subscribed to a lot of lists (about 10), this
is the only one not
using a [header] in the subject lines.
That's not a lot of lists. I'm subscribed to a few hundred. Checking my
sieve filter I'm currently filtering 255 lists by the List-ID header. While
many of the lists I'm on do have a [list id] in the subject line, many of
the other lists I'm don't, and they're not needed on any of the lists I'm
on. Filtering by a List-ID header is a much better option.
--
Kevin
http://www.RawFedDogs.net
http://www.Lassie.xyz
http://www.WacoAgilityGroup.org
Bruceville, TX
What's the definition of a legacy system? One that works!
Errare humanum est, ignoscere caninum.
19 Nov
19 Nov
11:43 p.m.
New subject: [cctalk] Re: Could someone make the list do the [cctalk] thing in the subject line?
Been AFK and out of town for a week and just catching up on all my email messages.
I'm on a couple of emailing list where the modified subject header is an issue
of contention. Not sure why, but the square bracket header thing sure helps me.
Everyone else just does this by default.
My work around is have procmail add the [square] bracket entry to the header
when the email come in.
Here is a sample procmail recipe from another mailing list.
..........................................
# IPv6 operators forum header
:0 fw
* ^List-Id:[ ].*\<ipv6-ops\.lists\.cluenet\.de>
|/bin/sed -e 's/^Subject:[ ]*/Subject: [IPv6 operators forum] /'
..........................................
This works great for me.
YMMV. enjoy,
Jerry
On 11/17/15 09:54 AM, ethan at 757.org wrote:
Hello,
By any chance could someone configure the mailing list to add [cctalk] or
[cc] or [cct] into the beginning of the subject line? Not looking to filter,
just not looking to delete messages.
--
Ethan O'Toole
3096
days inactive
3099
days old
27 comments
21 participants
participants (21)
-
aek＠bitsavers.org -
bqt＠update.uu.se -
cc＠informatik.uni-stuttgart.de -
christian_liendo＠yahoo.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
cube1＠charter.net -
dave＠661.org -
echristopherson＠gmail.com -
elson＠pico-systems.com -
ethan＠757.org -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
jules.richardson99＠gmail.com -
jwest＠classiccmp.org -
Kevin＠RawFedDogs.net -
kurtk7＠visi.com -
lehmann＠ans-netz.de -
nf6x＠nf6x.net -
other＠oryx.us -
pete＠dunnington.plus.com -
simski＠dds.nl -
woyciesjes＠sbcglobal.net