20 Oct
2011
20 Oct
'11
5:03 p.m.
Due to the large number of pending subscriptions to cctalk and cctech I
am about to 'reject' all of them and request that anyone still waiting
to subscribe please re-subscribe at which point they will be approved
quickly.
Please make sure you only request subscription to one of the lists.
To re-iterate:
cctalk is un-moderated, cctech is moderated
cctalk is a superset of cctech
Anything posted to cctalk appears immediately
Anything posted to cctech is cross-posted to cctalk immediately
Anything posted to cctalk OR cctech is (cross-)posted to cctech if the
moderator (me!) feels it is on-topic - therefore they will always be a
delay before postings appear on cctech
There are some posts in cctech which are bypassing moderation - we hope
to sort this out soon.
--
Lawrence Wilkinson lawrence at ljw.me.uk
The IBM 360/30 page http://www.ljw.me.uk/ibm360
21 Oct
21 Oct
2:40 a.m.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Lawrence Wilkinson
<ljw-cctech at ljw.me.uk> wrote:
Due to the large number of pending subscriptions to
cctalk and cctech I
am about to 'reject' all of them and request that anyone still waiting
to subscribe please re-subscribe at which point they will be approved
That seems a very bad way of dealing with a back log .
Add moderators perhaps would be a better way and more responsible.
I have seen a few complaints from legitimate users about getting on
the list and this just adds to the problems users have to explain to
prospective users.
I would advise a rethink on that idea.
Dave Caroline
quickly.
Please make sure you only request subscription to one of the lists.
To re-iterate:
cctalk is un-moderated, cctech is moderated
cctalk is a superset of cctech
Anything posted to cctalk appears immediately
Anything posted to cctech is cross-posted to cctalk immediately
Anything posted to cctalk OR cctech is (cross-)posted to cctech if the
moderator (me!) feels it is on-topic - therefore they will always be a
delay before postings appear on cctech
There are some posts in cctech which are bypassing moderation - we hope
to sort this out soon.
--
Lawrence Wilkinson ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? lawrence at ljw.me.uk
The IBM 360/30 page ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? http://www.ljw.me.uk/ibm360
9:42 a.m.
Lawrence Wilkinson wrote:
Due to the large number of pending subscriptions to
cctalk and cctech I
am about to 'reject' all of them and request that anyone still waiting
to subscribe please re-subscribe at which point they will be approved
quickly.
What's the normal accept/reject process for potential new subscribers?
9:57 a.m.
Well, for me it was "wait approximately two years for an answer, then get rejected
and told to reattempt subscription". But at least I'm on the list now!
On Oct 21, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Jules Richardson wrote:
Lawrence Wilkinson wrote:
Due to the large number of pending subscriptions
to cctalk and cctech I
am about to 'reject' all of them and request that anyone still waiting
to subscribe please re-subscribe at which point they will be approved
quickly.
What's the normal accept/reject process for potential new subscribers?
10:58 a.m.
I feel like I've won the lottery! I made it onto cctalk after 1+ year
of trying! Booyah!
-Bill
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:57 AM, David Riley <fraveydank at gmail.com> wrote:
Well, for me it was "wait approximately two years
for an answer, then get rejected and told to reattempt subscription". ?But at least
I'm on the list now!
On Oct 21, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Jules Richardson wrote:
Lawrence Wilkinson wrote:
Due to the large number of pending subscriptions
to cctalk and cctech I
am about to 'reject' all of them and request that anyone still waiting
to subscribe please re-subscribe at which point they will be approved
quickly.
What's the normal accept/reject process for potential new subscribers?
11:51 a.m.
David Riley wrote:
Well, for me it was "wait approximately two years
for an answer, then
get rejected and told to reattempt subscription". But at least I'm on
the list now!
Well, welcome! (And I'm resisting the urge to say anything about
top-posting ;-)
I'm just curious what the moderator process is for subscriptions (it's been
a while - probably a good ten years since I re-joined the list, having gone
on hiatus for a few years prior to that) - therefore I'm not sure what, if
anything, is done to filter out spam subscriptions; maybe blanket approval
of anything pending makes more sense (but perhaps there's some reason that
the backlog can't be processed via script)
I suppose some people join the list just to ask a question or two and then
depart - and I know some have joined and been overwhelmed by the level of
traffic, so have left again. But my guess is that the majority join because
of a continued interest in vintage computers, so it doesn't really matter
if their subscription is processed late - they'll still be interested in
joining.
cheers
Jules
12:13 p.m.
On Oct 21, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Jules Richardson wrote:
David Riley wrote:
Yes, I tend to forget about top-/bottom-posting customs on older mailing lists. I got
used to bottom-posting, then in the professional world it ended up freaking people out
("you sent me an empty reply!" from people who don't bother to check the
bottom), so I got used to the other way. Ah, well. I see the merits of both approaches,
it's just hard to keep them straight in my head. :-)
- Dave
Well, for me it was "wait approximately two
years for an answer, then
get rejected and told to reattempt subscription". But at least I'm on
the list now!
Well, welcome! (And I'm resisting the urge to say anything about top-posting ;-)
3:50 p.m.
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011, David Riley wrote:
Yes, I tend to forget about top-/bottom-posting
customs on older mailing
lists. I got used to bottom-posting, then in the professional world it
ended up freaking people out ("you sent me an empty reply!" from people
who don't bother to check the bottom), so I got used to the other way.
Ah, well. I see the merits of both approaches, it's just hard to keep
them straight in my head. :-)
Bottom posting requires coscientious trimming of quoted material.
Top posting encourages leaving an archive of everything that has been said
since the last time that somebody trimmed.
Accordingly the terminally clueless (such as college administators) who
will never learn simple etiquette of trimming, need to be on top-posting
systems. Note that Outhouse (and State Farm's Clueless Messaging) push
top-posting.
We operate on the assumption that those who finally get admitted here are
those who are capable of learning.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
3:58 p.m.
On Oct 21, 2011, at 9:50 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011, David Riley wrote:
oops.. I'd better learn fast then!
Regards
Benjamin
Yes, I tend to forget about top-/bottom-posting
customs on older mailing
lists. I got used to bottom-posting, then in the professional world it
ended up freaking people out ("you sent me an empty reply!" from people
who don't bother to check the bottom), so I got used to the other way.
Ah, well. I see the merits of both approaches, it's just hard to keep
them straight in my head. :-)
<snip>
We operate on the assumption that those who finally get admitted here are
those who are capable of learning.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
4:18 p.m.
On Oct 21, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
Bottom posting requires coscientious trimming of
quoted material.
Top posting encourages leaving an archive of everything that has been said
since the last time that somebody trimmed.
Exactly the argument I hear every time. It's not that I disagree, I just forget who
prefers what. :-)
In any case, I've existed on plenty of lists that get rather snippy (har har) about
untrimmed top-posting (misc at openbsd.org, in particular, is not a place where you want
to be a slow learner). I'm pretty sure I'll remember better once I'm in the
swing of things.
Accordingly the terminally clueless (such as college
administators) who
will never learn simple etiquette of trimming, need to be on top-posting
systems. Note that Outhouse (and State Farm's Clueless Messaging) push
top-posting.
Indeed. Apple's Mail.app allows a selection of either, though it doesn't have any
functionality for doing it per-list (which might be some complicated AI anyway). Where I
work (engineering), it's a combination of incompetence (which is rife amongst our
customers) and the desire to have the entire conversation in the message so that you can
basically forward the whole thread on to someone instantly. Gets used maybe 1e-12 percent
of the time.
- Dave
4:42 p.m.
On Oct 21, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
Accordingly the terminally clueless (such as college
administators) who
will never learn simple etiquette of trimming, need to be on top-posting
systems. Note that Outhouse (and State Farm's Clueless Messaging) push
top-posting.
Actually Outlook allows a variety of methods for message quoting and it
takes very little effort to change to one that suits you. It's one of the
few that gives you a choice in that respect.
Lance
3:23 p.m.
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:57 PM, David Riley <fraveydank at gmail.com> wrote:
Well, for me it was "wait approximately two years
for an answer, then get rejected and told to reattempt subscription". ?But at least
I'm on the list now!
You too huh? All I did was try to change my email address, because my
email address, well, changed. Then I get shut out for two years...
then I get rejected. It's good to be back though!
--
Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems: ?"The Future Begins Tomorrow"
Visit us at: http://www.yoyodyne-propulsion.net
--------
"Its?not the years honey,?its the mileage..."
4:35 p.m.
On 10/21/2011 09:23 PM, John Many Jars wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:57 PM, David
Riley<fraveydank at gmail.com> wrote:
I must have applied twice because I've on the list for two or so years
_and_ I got the rejection mail :)
My friend on the other hand was only rejected and thought it meant he
would not be accepted at all. The message in the rejection mail could
have been more inviting.
May I suggest that a second invitation mail is sent next week to those
who go rejected but did _not_ reapply.
All in all, I hope this kick starts the process of accepting new members.
Cheers,
Pontus.
Well, for me it was "wait approximately two
years for an answer, then get rejected and told to reattempt subscription". But at
least I'm on the list now!
You too huh? All I did was try to change my email
address, because my
email address, well, changed. Then I get shut out for two years...
then I get rejected. It's good to be back though!
4:47 p.m.
On Oct 21, 2011, at 4:35 PM, Pontus wrote:
My friend on the other hand was only rejected and
thought it meant he would not be accepted at all. The message in the rejection mail could
have been more inviting.
I actually thought it was pretty clear once I read past the subject line. I reapplied
immediately because it told me to. Did some earlier messages go out without that
instruction?
- Dave
5:13 p.m.
On 10/21/2011 10:47 PM, David Riley wrote:
On Oct 21, 2011, at 4:35 PM, Pontus wrote:
Hmm, I re-read it and it was pretty clear. Perhaps my friend skimmed it.
/P
My friend on the other hand was only rejected and
thought it meant he would not be accepted at all. The message in the rejection mail could
have been more inviting.
I actually thought it was pretty clear once I read past
the subject line. I reapplied immediately because it told me to. Did some earlier
messages go out without that instruction?
- Dave 
7:11 p.m.
New subject: cctalk subject lines/configuration
Not that I'm complaining, I've been meaning to get on the list for years but for
those of you more familiar with the app, is there a quick way to get an automated subject
tag (cctalk for example) added to the subject line?
I know some mailing list daemons allowed modification of that, wasn't sure if this one
did.
Thanks!
- John
7:18 p.m.
New subject: cctalk subject lines/configuration
On 10/21/2011 07:11 PM, Sam Onella wrote:
Not that I'm complaining, I've been meaning to
get on the list for years but for those of you more familiar with the app, is there a
quick way to get an automated subject tag (cctalk for example) added to the subject line?
I know some mailing list daemons allowed modification of that, wasn't sure if this
one did.
I don't know of any that don't allow this, and I don't know of any
other mailing lists which don't have that subject line tag. I've
suggested it a few times over the years but nobody seems interested.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
7:28 p.m.
New subject: cctalk subject lines/configuration
On Oct 21, 2011, at 7:18 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
I don't know of any that don't allow this,
and I don't know of any other mailing lists which don't have that subject line
tag. I've suggested it a few times over the years but nobody seems interested.
I know of quite a few that don't (and they're quite popular lists). Lots of mail
clients allow actions to be taken on various header lines (such as To: cctalk at
classiccmp.org), but that's maybe not the best way to go about things.
- Dave
9:01 p.m.
New subject: cctalk subject lines/configuration
At 07:28 PM 10/21/2011, David Riley wrote:
I know of quite a few that don't (and they're
quite popular
lists). Lots of mail clients allow actions to be taken on various
header lines (such as To: cctalk at classiccmp.org), but that's maybe not
the best way to go about things.
There's a standard (RFC) for mailing list headers. For example, the
CCTALK list ALWAYS inserts
List-Id: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk.classiccmp.org>
That's what you should use for filtering. If you can't, then it's time
to find a functioning mail client. :)
-Rick
22 Oct
22 Oct
2:54 a.m.
New subject: cctalk subject lines/configuration
On Oct 21, 2011, at 9:01 PM, Rick Murphy <rick at rickmurphy.net> wrote:
At 07:28 PM 10/21/2011, David Riley wrote:
My mail client(s) work just fine, thanks, and I've been running bug mailing lists
for two decades now, I di know how to sort mail. Everyone gas jumped to the conclusion
that I want subject tagging for automated sorting purposes, which is not the case.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
I know of quite a few that don't (and
they're quite popular lists). Lots of mail clients allow actions to be taken on
various header lines (such as To: cctalk at classiccmp.org), but that's maybe not the
best way to go about things.
There's a standard (RFC) for mailing list headers. For example, the CCTALK list
ALWAYS inserts
List-Id: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk.classiccmp.org>
That's what you should use for filtering. If you can't, then it's time to
find a functioning mail client. :)
3:05 a.m.
New subject: cctalk subject lines/configuration
On Oct 22, 2011, at 2:54 AM, Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 2011, at 9:01 PM, Rick Murphy <rick at
rickmurphy.net> wrote:
s/bug/big, s/di/do
Grr, touch screens.
Anyway, I'm not losing sleep over it, my preference isn't a hugely strong one,
but it's definitely unusual to not have those.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
At 07:28 PM 10/21/2011, David Riley wrote:
My mail client(s) work just fine, thanks, and I've been running bug mailing lists
for two decades now, I di know how to sort mail. Everyone gas jumped to the conclusion
that I want subject tagging for automated sorting purposes, which is not the case. I know of quite a few that don't (and
they're quite popular lists). Lots of mail clients allow actions to be taken on
various header lines (such as To: cctalk at classiccmp.org), but that's maybe not the
best way to go about things.
There's a standard (RFC) for mailing list headers. For example, the CCTALK list
ALWAYS inserts
List-Id: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk.classiccmp.org>
That's what you should use for filtering. If you can't, then it's time to
find a functioning mail client. :) 
21 Oct
21 Oct
7:54 p.m.
New subject: cctalk subject lines/configuration
Dave wrote....
I don't know of any that don't allow this,
and I don't know of any other
mailing lists which don't have that subject line tag. I've suggested it a
few times over the years but nobody seems interested.
Actually, I had that turned on for some time on the list, people complained
bitterly and asked me to remove it, so I did. I believe the prevailing
objection was that it made subject lines longer (scrolling some of the more
"important" part of the subject out of view on some peoples mail clients),
and in fact there were other ways to identify/classify it, particularly
source addresses, headers, etc.
J
22 Oct
22 Oct
2:51 a.m.
New subject: cctalk subject lines/configuration
On Oct 21, 2011, at 7:54 PM, "Jay West" <jwest at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Dave wrote....
I'm quite surprised to hear this. Have those guys just never seen any other mailing
lists? That is very much the norm, and has been for a really long time.
Weird.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
I don't know of any that don't allow
this, and I don't know of any other mailing lists which don't have that subject
line tag. I've suggested it a few times over the years but nobody seems interested.
Actually, I had that turned on for some time on the list, people complained bitterly and
asked me to remove it, so I did. I believe the prevailing objection was that it made
subject lines longer (scrolling some of the more "important" part of the subject
out of view on some peoples mail clients), and in fact there were other ways to
identify/classify it, particularly source addresses, headers, etc.
11:42 a.m.
New subject: cctalk subject lines/configuration
Dave McGuire wrote:
On Oct 21, 2011, at 7:54 PM, "Jay West"
<jwest at classiccmp.org> wrote:
I'm one of "those guys". It wasn't the norm when classiccmp first
started -
I don't think it started to become common until the late 90s, in that brief
period before mail clients generally had useful filtering abilities (or,
indeed, the concept of different folders even)
Personally, I filter different lists according to header data - so there's
no need for subject-tagging and it just wastes up space (I've wondered if
there's a way to set up Thunderbird so that it removes it for the lists I'm
on that *do* have it, but I've never got the tuits together to look into it)
Be thankful that the default reply-to isn't to the individual rather than
the list, unlike one mailing list that I'm on ;-)
cheers
Jules
Dave wrote....
I'm quite surprised to hear this. Have those guys just never seen any
other mailing lists? That is very much the norm, and has been for a
really long time. I don't know of any that don't allow
this, and I don't know of any
other mailing lists which don't have that subject line tag. I've
suggested it a few times over the years but nobody seems interested.
Actually, I had that turned on for some time on the list, people
complained bitterly and asked me to remove it, so I did. I believe the
prevailing objection was that it made subject lines longer (scrolling
some of the more "important" part of the subject out of view on some
peoples mail clients), and in fact there were other ways to
identify/classify it, particularly source addresses, headers, etc.
3 p.m.
New subject: cctalk subject lines/configuration
On 10/22/2011 11:42 AM, Jules Richardson wrote:
I'm quite surprised to hear this. Have those guys just never seen any
other mailing lists? That is very much the norm, and has been for a
really long time.
I'm one of "those guys". It wasn't the norm when classiccmp first
started - I don't think it started to become common until the late 90s,
in that brief period before mail clients generally had useful filtering
abilities (or, indeed, the concept of different folders even)
Personally, I filter different lists according to header data - so
there's no need for subject-tagging and it just wastes up space
I do not share that opinion. ;) As I've said, I don't want subject
tagging for automatic sorting of email. That is absolutely the wrong
way to do it, and as such, I'd never dream of doing it that way. (you
know how anal I am! ;)
It is my personal preference to NOT have my inbound mail pre-sorted
into folders. I prefer to do it this way because, when trying it for
the first time many years ago (using the ELM mailer and procmail) I
found that I just never got around to checking those other folders. I
want all of my inbound mail in my main mail spool, and seeing "[cctalk]"
(for example) in there allows me to cruise through my new mail and
correctly frame each message in the right mental context.
I get a lot of personal mail with subject lines containing stuff like
"help with PDP-11", and I've found that I can just roll along replying
as if I were sending something to a list, and two paragraphs later
notice that it was actually a personal message that I may have replied
to differently for whatever reason.
And again, I get along just fine without it most of the time, it's
not something that I feel really strongly about, but I do prefer it that
way and it is (based on the other lists I'm on) pretty unusual not to
have it.
I don't
know of any that don't allow this, and I don't know of any
other mailing lists which don't have that subject line tag. I've
suggested it a few times over the years but nobody seems interested.
Actually, I had that turned on for some time on the list, people
complained bitterly and asked me to remove it, so I did. I believe the
prevailing objection was that it made subject lines longer (scrolling
some of the more "important" part of the subject out of view on some
peoples mail clients), and in fact there were other ways to
identify/classify it, particularly source addresses, headers, etc. (I've
wondered if there's a way to set up Thunderbird so that it removes it
for the lists I'm on that *do* have it, but I've never got the tuits
together to look into it)
There's probably an extension, or at least there should be. That'd
be pretty handy. Such an extension would likely be able to be written
to *add* them as well, to suit user preference.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
10:09 p.m.
New subject: cctalk subject lines/configuration
At 03:00 PM 10/22/2011, Dave McGuire wrote:
I do not share that opinion. ;) As I've said, I
don't want subject
tagging for automatic sorting of email. That is absolutely the wrong
way to do it, and as such, I'd never dream of doing it that way. (you
know how anal I am! ;)
I do not share your opinion. :-)
Here's what you should add to your .procmailrc, which will get you what
you want:
:0 fhw
* ^List-Id:.*<cctalk.classiccmp.org>
* ^Subject: \/.*
| formail -I "Subject: [CCTALK] $MATCH"
As I said, that's what the List-Id header is for: reliably identifying
mail from the list so you can handle it as you wish. While that's
helpful for sorting mail into folders, that's only one thing it's good for.
The dual nature of this list (cctech/cctalk) means that the list
management software gets confused with cross-posted email. I don't
think mailman (which I think is what's used) is smart enough to keep
from inserting the tech/talk subject tags multiple
times. Perhaps using
a single tag for both lists would work and avoid "Re:
[CCTECH] Re:
[CCTALK] [CCTECH] Re: Re: [CCTALK]" strings. Perhaps it's worthwhile
trying that (I don't personally object to inserting a single tag).
However, if the list management software can't deal with it, any hope
that list members will clean up subject lines before posting is
delusionary.
-Rick
23 Oct
23 Oct
4:53 a.m.
New subject: cctalk subject lines/configuration
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:00:12 -0400
Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
it is (based on the other lists I'm on) pretty
unusual not to have it.
Yes. Many mailing lists suffer from this disease. It started
to spreed
when more and more lusers got on mailing lists. Those lusers where to
dump to setup there MUAs to filter on "X-BeenThere: " or "Sender: "
etc. So that "Subject: " mangling idiocy started to spreed. For me this
is just nothing else but idiot compatibility. I absolutely can't stand
it. Most of the time I can't read the actual subject, beause it is
prefixed with so many and long prefixes. All I see in my MUAs subject
is prefixes. Relly anoying.
I am really glad that classiccmp and the NetBSD lists are free of this
*~$\#?%!^/@(*$#(. It is just the same luseritis as top-post-full-quote.
Maybe I shloud set up some procmail filtering to remove that |@&^*)#\%
prefixing from Subject lines. (And if I get around to do it, I am glad
to share my setup with you. Because the same stuff that removes
prefixes can be used to insert them. So you will get your prefixes on
lists that don't do it for you. :-) )
--
\end{Jochen}
\ref{http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/}
21 Oct
21 Oct
11:11 p.m.
New subject: cctalk subject lines/configuration
It was thus said that the Great Dave McGuire once stated:
On 10/21/2011 07:11 PM, Sam Onella wrote:
Maybe because this mailing list has the standard headers for a mailing
list:
List-Id: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk.classiccmp.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.classiccmp.org/mailman/options/cctalk>,
<mailto:cctalk-request at classiccmp.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk>
List-Post: <mailto:cctalk at classiccmp.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cctalk-request at classiccmp.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.classiccmp.org/mailman/listinfo/cctalk>,
<mailto:cctalk-request at classiccmp.org?subject=subscribe>
and your better email clients can use those for filtering purposes.
-spc (In fact, I haven't seen a mailing list in years that doesn't have
those headers ...)
Not that I'm complaining, I've been
meaning to get on the list for years
but for those of you more familiar with the app, is there a quick way to
get an automated subject tag (cctalk for example) added to the subject
line?
I know some mailing list daemons allowed modification of that, wasn't sure
if this one did.
I don't know of any that don't allow this, and I don't know of any
other mailing lists which don't have that subject line tag. I've
suggested it a few times over the years but nobody seems interested.
22 Oct
22 Oct
2:49 a.m.
New subject: cctalk subject lines/configuration
On Oct 21, 2011, at 11:11 PM, Sean Conner <spc at conman.org> wrote:
It was thus said that the Great Dave McGuire once
stated:
...
Right, I never suggested that this list didn't have them. Every list has them, even
the old Majordomo program (remember those days?) provided those headers.
On 10/21/2011 07:11 PM, Sam Onella wrote:
Maybe because this mailing list has the standard headers for a mailing
list: Not that I'm complaining, I've been
meaning to get on the list for years
but for those of you more familiar with the app, is there a quick way to
get an automated subject tag (cctalk for example) added to the subject
line?
I know some mailing list daemons allowed modification of that, wasn't sure
if this one did.
I don't know of any that don't allow this, and I don't know of any
other mailing lists which don't have that subject line tag. I've
suggested it a few times over the years but nobody seems interested. and your better email clients can use those for
filtering purposes.
Indeed. Don't *all* mail clients support that? I don't know of any that
don't.
However, subject tagging isn't for automatic sorting purposes. As you correctly
pointed out, there are better ways to do that.
These two things have nothing to do with each other, and having one doesn't obviate
the need or lessen the desire for the other.
-spc (In fact, I haven't seen a mailing list in
years that doesn't have
those headers ...)
I've seen maybe one other list in decades that didn't provide subject tags.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
4:36 a.m.
New subject: cctalk subject lines/configuration
On 22 Oct 2011, at 1:18 , Dave McGuire wrote:
I don't know of any that don't allow this, and
I don't know of any other mailing lists which don't have that subject line tag.
I've suggested it a few times over the years but nobody seems interested.
Before long, subject lines will change into a mess of
"[cctalk]Re:[cctalk]RE:[cctalk]Re:[cctalk] strings?
.tsooJ
11:38 a.m.
New subject: cctalk subject lines/configuration
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011, Joost van de Griek wrote:
On 22 Oct 2011, at 1:18 , Dave McGuire wrote:
That's highly unlikely. I've _never_ seen that happen with the various
lists I'm on (including the ones I run) that subject tag.
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical
minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which
holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd
by the clean end.
I don't know of any that don't allow
this, and I don't know of any other mailing lists which don't have that subject
line tag. I've suggested it a few times over the years but nobody seems interested.
Before long, subject lines will change into a mess of
"[cctalk]Re:[cctalk]RE:[cctalk]Re:[cctalk] strings?
12:55 p.m.
New subject: cctalk subject lines/configuration
On Oct 22, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Gene Buckle <geneb at deltasoft.com> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011, Joost van de Griek wrote:
I've seen it happen a few times, but not often.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
On 22 Oct 2011, at 1:18 , Dave McGuire wrote:
That's highly unlikely. I've _never_ seen that happen with the various
lists I'm on (including the ones I run) that subject tag. I don't know of any that don't allow
this, and I don't know of any other mailing lists which don't have that subject
line tag. I've suggested it a few times over the years but nobody seems interested.
Before long, subject lines will change into a mess of
"[cctalk]Re:[cctalk]RE:[cctalk]Re:[cctalk] strings?
12:53 p.m.
New subject: cctalk subject lines/configuration
On Oct 22, 2011, at 4:36 AM, Joost van de Griek <gyorpb at gmail.com> wrote:
On 22 Oct 2011, at 1:18 , Dave McGuire wrote:
Yes, if people don't trim them, like every other list.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
I don't know of any that don't allow
this, and I don't know of any other mailing lists which don't have that subject
line tag. I've suggested it a few times over the years but nobody seems interested.
Before long, subject lines will change into a mess of
"[cctalk]Re:[cctalk]RE:[cctalk]Re:[cctalk] strings?
2:55 p.m.
New subject: cctalk subject lines/configuration
> Before long, subject lines will change into a
mess of
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011, Dave McGuire wrote:
Yes, if people don't trim them, like every other
list.
ALMOST everybody on this list is responsible about trimming the message
body. But our subject lines tend to remain unchanged through a dozen
topic changes. Although, admittedly, this subject line no longer mentions
Ritchie nor Jobs.
3:02 p.m.
New subject: cctalk subject lines/configuration
On 10/22/2011 02:55 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
Yes. I'm pretty bad about that sometimes myself, though I do try to
remember. I think it's easy to get caught up in a conversation and just
end up ignoring the subject line.
> Before
long, subject lines will change into a mess of
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011, Dave McGuire
wrote:
Yes, if people don't trim them, like every
other list.
ALMOST everybody on this list is responsible about trimming the message
body. But our subject lines tend to remain unchanged through a dozen
topic changes. Although, admittedly, this subject line no longer
mentions
Ritchie nor Jobs.
...which is a miracle!
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
2:18 p.m.
New subject: [cctalk] cctalk subject lines/configuration
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011, Joost van de Griek wrote:
Before long, subject lines will change into a mess of
"[cctalk]Re:[cctalk]RE:[cctalk]Re:[cctalk] strings?
Surely the mail program could be configured to not add it if it is already
present anywhere within the subject?
4656
days inactive
4659
days old
35 comments
18 participants
participants (18)
-
barythrin＠yahoo.com -
benjamin.soelberg＠gmail.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dave.thearchivist＠gmail.com -
fraveydank＠gmail.com -
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
gyorpb＠gmail.com -
jkunz＠unixag-kl.fh-kl.de -
john＠yoyodyne-propulsion.net -
jules.richardson99＠gmail.com -
jwest＠classiccmp.org -
lance.w.lyon＠gmail.com -
ljw-cctech＠ljw.me.uk -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
pontus＠update.uu.se -
rick＠rickmurphy.net -
spc＠conman.org -
wrh＠wootsie.com