3 Feb
2000
3 Feb
'00
5:31 a.m.
From: allisonp(a)world.std.com
Another pet peeve, posts/replies in html, I don't
read them and dump them
sumarily as A) they are often spam, B)the are a pain to handle via said
slow telnet and pine.
I have the same attitude, WHY do people think we would even want to see a
fancy schmancy version of what they typed as simple ASCII text, especially
when many of us read this list on simple ASCII terminals anyway so we can't
see any of the colors or misaligned columns. It's especially annoying when
a message contains the same text twice, once as text and once as HTML, so
at least half of the message is useless to *everyone*. I would *love* it if
list servers could be set up to filter this crap out, or at the very least
run the HTML text through Lynx or something and translate it back to usable
80-column ASCII.
FWIW I'm not crazy about the new header format, when I replied to this msg
with "R" (I'm using Berkeley Mail) it would have gone to Allison only, and
when I changed to "r", the mailing list was only there as a Cc:, if I had
edited out the other recipients there would have been *no* primary recipient,
only a Cc:. And that's certainly not what we want!
This problem comes up on every mailing list, maybe it would make sense to
define an X-Foo: header that gives the mailing list address and hack the
popular mailers to have a "reply to mailing list" command? Or has this
already been done and I'm just oblivious as usual? Of course this wouldn't
help Windows users running canned mailers with no source code available,
but what can I say, shame on you!!! :-)
John Wilson
D Bit
3 Feb
3 Feb
6:03 a.m.
I really hate that HTML mail crap, too, and usually just delete it. I
have little enough time, anyway, I don't want to waste it it in HTML
unless I'm writing it.
On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, John Wilson wrote:
M. K. Peirce
Rhode Island Computer Museum, Inc.
215 Shady Lea Road,
North Kingstown, RI 02852
"Casta est qui nemo rogavit."
- Ovid
From:
allisonp(a)world.std.com
Another pet peeve, posts/replies in html, I
don't read them and dump them
sumarily as A) they are often spam, B)the are a pain to handle via said
slow telnet and pine.
I have the same attitude, WHY do people think we would even want to see a
fancy schmancy version of what they typed as simple ASCII text, especially
when many of us read this list on simple ASCII terminals anyway so we can't
see any of the colors or misaligned columns. It's especially annoying when
a message contains the same text twice, once as text and once as HTML, so
at least half of the message is useless to *everyone*. I would *love* it if
list servers could be set up to filter this crap out, or at the very least
run the HTML text through Lynx or something and translate it back to usable
80-column ASCII.
FWIW I'm not crazy about the new header format, when I replied to this msg
with "R" (I'm using Berkeley Mail) it would have gone to Allison only, and
when I changed to "r", the mailing list was only there as a Cc:, if I had
edited out the other recipients there would have been *no* primary recipient,
only a Cc:. And that's certainly not what we want!
This problem comes up on every mailing list, maybe it would make sense to
define an X-Foo: header that gives the mailing list address and hack the
popular mailers to have a "reply to mailing list" command? Or has this
already been done and I'm just oblivious as usual? Of course this wouldn't
help Windows users running canned mailers with no source code available,
but what can I say, shame on you!!! :-)
John Wilson
D Bit
6:12 a.m.
New subject: NO HTML! was Re: No I'm not going to retype the subject
"Merle K. Peirce" wrote:
I really hate that HTML mail crap, too, and usually just delete it. I
have little enough time, anyway, I don't want to waste it it in HTML
unless I'm writing it.
I also really dislike the HTML and it only seems like a way for some people
to display cutsie messages. It gets in my reader okay, but is not nearly as
easy to read as the ascii text most people send to the list.
4:36 p.m.
New subject: HTML in Email
I too vote against embedded HTML in email. Give me the content, the fancy
formatting is superfluous.
Kevin
At 12:03 PM 00/02/03 -0500, Merle K. Peirce wrote:
---
Kevin McQuiggin VE7ZD
mcquiggi(a)sfu.ca
I really hate that HTML mail crap, too, and usually just delete it. I
have little enough time, anyway, I don't want to waste it it in HTML
unless I'm writing it.
On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, John Wilson wrote:
> >From: allisonp(a)world.std.com
>
> >Another pet peeve, posts/replies in html, I don't read them and dump them
> >sumarily as A) they are often spam, B)the are a pain to handle via said
> >slow telnet and pine.
>
> I have the same attitude, WHY do people think we would even want to see a
> fancy schmancy version of what they typed as simple ASCII text, especially
> when many of us read this list on simple ASCII terminals anyway so we can't
> see any of the colors or misaligned columns. It's especially annoying when
> a message contains the same text twice, once as text and once as HTML, so
> at least half of the message is useless to *everyone*. I would *love*
it if
> list servers could be set up to filter this crap
out, or at the very least
> run the HTML text through Lynx or something and translate it back to usable
> 80-column ASCII.
>
> FWIW I'm not crazy about the new header format, when I replied to this msg
> with "R" (I'm using Berkeley Mail) it would have gone to Allison only,
and
> when I changed to "r", the mailing list was only there as a Cc:, if I had
> edited out the other recipients there would have been *no* primary
recipient,
only a Cc:.
And that's certainly not what we want!
This problem comes up on every mailing list, maybe it would make sense to
define an X-Foo: header that gives the mailing list address and hack the
popular mailers to have a "reply to mailing list" command? Or has this
already been done and I'm just oblivious as usual? Of course this wouldn't
help Windows users running canned mailers with no source code available,
but what can I say, shame on you!!! :-)
John Wilson
D Bit
M. K. Peirce
Rhode Island Computer Museum, Inc.
215 Shady Lea Road,
North Kingstown, RI 02852
"Casta est qui nemo rogavit."
- Ovid
4 Feb
4 Feb
12:51 p.m.
New subject: HTML in Email
At 10:49 PM 2/3/00 -0800, Mike F. wrote:
At 7:36 PM -0800 2/3/00, Kevin McQuiggin wrote:
In other words, typical WinDozes users! They'll learn real quick if we
all bounce their messages back to them!
Joe
I too vote against embedded HTML in email. Give me
the content, the fancy
formatting is superfluous.
The only problem being that most of the people who post HTML have no clue
they are doing it. 
8:16 p.m.
New subject: HTML in Email
I too vote against embedded HTML in email. Give me the
content, the fancy
formatting is superfluous.
The only problem being that most of the people who post HTML have no clue
they are doing it. 
9:41 p.m.
New subject: HTML in Email
It was thus said that the Great Mike Ford once stated:
OTOH I would not be willing to bet that some user on this list hasn't
entered a message via toggle switches in octal. ;) They are just the ones
to use HTML to prove a point. Actually it sounds a bit easier than the
method Allison is using now. <ducking and running>
Actually, this isn't the first time this topic has come up on this list.
The last time was .. wow! January of 1999 (hmmmm ... seasonal topic?). And
last time, Chuck McManis wanted HTML:
Sheesh. Plain text really sucks. Y'all prefer that
someone type _like this_
to indicate a piece of underlined text? or my habit *bolding* with
asterisks? This message "encoded" with HTML is roughly 5% larger than it is
in plain text. Wow, now that's a waste of resources.
I responded in kind (and also in Postscript, morse code, and uuencoded
DVI).
-spc (I wonder what complaints about email we'll be bitching, uh,
discussing, next year?)
6 Feb
6 Feb
8:43 a.m.
New subject: HTML in Email
Hi Sean,
> Sheesh. Plain text really sucks. Y'all prefer
that someone type _like
>this_ to indicate a piece of underlined text? or my habit *bolding* with
>asterisks? This message "encoded" with HTML is roughly 5% larger than it
>is in plain text. Wow, now that's a waste of resources.
Where did this quote come from? I've not seen this message, is my ISP losing
mail for me again? :-(
And to whoever actually wrote the above, where on earth did you get that
figure of 5% from? HTML encoded messages are pretty much *100%* bigger than
plain text messages - such messages contain TWO copies of the text, one in
plain ASCII, one in HTML.
Oh, and _YES_ I *personally* prefer the use of "_" and "*" to
emphasise
text....
TTFN - Pete.
--
Hardware & Software Engineer. Sound Engineer.
Collector of Arcade Machines, Games Consoles & Obsolete Computers (esp DEC)
peter.pachla(a)wintermute.org.uk | www.wintermute.org.uk
--
10:34 a.m.
New subject: HTML in Email
It was thus said that the Great Peter Pachla once stated:
Hi Sean,
Unless you were on the list in January of 1999, you wouldn't have seen the
message I quoted. Last year this time was a discussion about this very
topic and I just thought it would be interesting to bring it to our
collective attention again.
I have elm set up to save any outgoing message I send in a folder based
upon the recipient, so everything I write for classiccmp (with a few
exceptions over the past few days) is in one large folder called
``classiccmp.''
> Sheesh. Plain text really sucks. Y'all
prefer that someone type _like
>this_ to indicate a piece of underlined text? or my habit *bolding* with
>asterisks? This message "encoded" with HTML is roughly 5% larger than it
>is in plain text. Wow, now that's a waste of resources.
Where did this quote come from? I've not seen this message, is my ISP losing
mail for me again? :-( And to whoever actually wrote the above, where on
earth did you get that
figure of 5% from? HTML encoded messages are pretty much *100%* bigger than
plain text messages - such messages contain TWO copies of the text, one in
plain ASCII, one in HTML.
He was saying that HTML *itself* only adds about 5% to plain text.
Perhaps in a few cases that's true, like for hand written HTML, but most of
these so called HTML editors are really bad and bloat the HTML out quite a
bit.
-spc (You should have seen the HTML reply I sent him back 8-)
1:23 p.m.
New subject: HTML in Email
Hi Sean,
Unless you were on the list in January of 1999, you
wouldn't
have seen the message I quoted....
Sorry, I didn't realise the quote was from such an old message. I didn't
join the list until last May.
He was saying that HTML *itself* only adds about 5% to
plain
text....
Fair enough, I didn't realise that. I thought he was referring to the
overall size of the HTML encoded message.
....but most of these so called HTML editors are really
bad and
bloat the HTML out quite a bit.
Tell me about it. Since I haven't take the time to sit down and learn HTML
coding yet I use FrontPage, you want to look at that for a prime example of
bloated HTML production....I've heard tales of some pages being three times
larger than they could be mentioned in the FP newsgroup. :-(
TTFN - Pete.
--
Hardware & Software Engineer. Sound Engineer.
Collector of Arcade Machines, Games Consoles & Obsolete Computers (esp DEC)
peter.pachla(a)wintermute.org.uk | www.wintermute.org.uk
--
7 Feb
7 Feb
9:11 a.m.
New subject: HTML in Email
He was saying
that HTML *itself* only adds about 5% to plain
text....
Fair enough, I didn't realise that. I thought he was referring to the
overall size of the HTML encoded message. ....but most of
these so called HTML editors are really bad and
bloat the HTML out quite a bit.
Tell me about it. Since I haven't take the time
to sit down and learn HTML
coding yet I use FrontPage, you want to look at that for a prime example of
bloated HTML production....I've heard tales of some pages being three times
larger than they could be mentioned in the FP newsgroup. :-( 
10:52 a.m.
New subject: HTML in Email
Tell me about
it. Since I haven't take the time to sit down and learn HTML
coding yet I use FrontPage, you want to look at that for a prime example of
bloated HTML production....I've heard tales of some pages being three times
larger than they could be mentioned in the FP newsgroup. :-(
Prime example ? Well, one can name it that way ... I still do
99% of my HTML stuff in notepad - maybe not realy a world class
tool, but one get's used to it. And even the German umlauts are
not exactly a problem ü unstead of an "u isn't that hard.
Anyway, I once _had_ to use Frontpage to modify some pages
I did, and they did not only tripple in size, but also these
pages didn't render any longer correctly in some browser !=
MS-Explorer (And last but not least in my case, the code did
become completly unreadable - why 1000 times set font attributes
if I don't care for fonts at all ?) 
6 Feb
6 Feb
10:48 a.m.
New subject: HTML in Email
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 883 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20000206/3f8cb35a/at…
5 Feb
5 Feb
5:45 a.m.
New subject: HTML in Email
On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 11:16:33PM -0800, Mike Ford wrote:
OTOH I would not be willing to bet that some user on
this list hasn't
entered a message via toggle switches in octal. ;)
I still say that if people can mail me their MS-Word crap w/o asking first,
I should be able to send "Content-Type: application/runoff" to them and
let *them* be the ones to copy it through three systems to get it somewhere
where they can read it legibly (if they have RUNOFF at all, if they don't,
tough). So there! And of course "image/hpgl" too (with the pens loaded in
some unusual order just to be a pain) for tacking 2 KB corporate logos onto
every 300-character message. And if people insist on putting their card on
the end of every message, it should be 80 columns wide and 12 rows tall (and
mail the chad separately). Yeah, pcard instead of vcard! Well maybe not...
John Wilson
D Bit
8:05 a.m.
New subject: HTML in Email
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1783 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20000205/51b76e46/at…
10:11 a.m.
New subject: [ClassicCMP] Re: HTML in Email
At 07:05 PM 2/5/00 +0000, Tony Duell wrote:
Attacking a Word file with strings(1) often extracts
some readable text
from it. However, I wonder what I am missing, as it appears only about
1/8 of the file is said text.
Certainly within the last few years, Word was known for putting the
contents of undo buffers or previous cut operations in the .DOC file.
I know I used this trick to sometimes see the previous edits of,
say, a contract or letter that someone had sent to me in Word form. :-)
These days, if you hope to find strings in Windows-related files,
you really need a 'strings' that handles Unicode. I think I saw
one in the last year or two.
- John
11:20 a.m.
New subject: [ClassicCMP] Re: HTML in Email
At 07:05 PM 02/05/2000 +0000, you wrote:
There is one big difference. Runoff, *roff, TeX, etc
are all
human-readable anyway. Yes, I know TeX is a complete programming
language, so in theory you could encrypt some text and write a TeX document
that decodes it and prints it, but nobody ever does :-).
Tony: did you ever play with BASiX ? it was a bare-bones TeX-based BASIC
intepreter written just for the sake of proving that it could be done.
It was published in TUGBoat at some point in time. Fun source to look at.
12:28 p.m.
New subject: [ClassicCMP] Re: HTML in Email
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 669 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20000205/15d4ca14/at…
8:18 a.m.
New subject: [ClassicCmp] Tag requested in Subject: line
I'd like to see a small tag be prefixed to the Subject: line so that it's
easier to know that the email came from the Classic Computer list.
I suggest the Majordomo "config" file include a line like this:
subject_prefix = [ClassicCmp]
or somesuch. That way, it's quite easy to sort on messages from this list
both automatically, and, equally important, manually.
I don't much care -exactly- what the subject_prefix ends up being, just some
tag that uniquely identifies the message as coming from classiccmp.
Thanks!
-Mike
9:30 a.m.
New subject: ClassicCMP Re: [ClassicCmp] Tag requested in Subject: line
On Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 11:18:55AM -0800, Mike Cheponis wrote:
I'd like to see a small tag be prefixed to the
Subject: line so that it's
easier to know that the email came from the Classic Computer list.
I suggest the Majordomo "config" file include a line like this:
subject_prefix = [ClassicCmp]
or somesuch. That way, it's quite easy to sort on messages from this list
both automatically, and, equally important, manually.
I have to come out as vehemently opposed to this. I'm on a couple of lists
that do this, and *all* it really achieves is reducing the number of
visibie/useful characters in the Subject: header, and increasing the
noise level.
The Sender: header already contains "owner-classiccmp"; surely pine (never
used it, msyelf; went from 'mail' to 'elm' to 'mutt', which I
*LIKE* :-))
can sort on Sender:. Or use procmail to distribute your mail into folders;
the following is the procmail recipe that I use for this list:
:0:
* ^Sender:.*owner-classiccmp*
classiccomp
(Yes, it could be smarter, but I don't feel like taking the time :-))
In short, Ah'm agin' it.
--
Dann Lunsford The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil
dann(a)greycat.com is that men of good will do nothing. -- Cicero
12:30 p.m.
New subject: [ClassicCMP] Re: ClassicCMP Re: [ClassicCmp] Tag requested in Subject: line
I don't mind a subject thing, but maybe shorter? [CCmp] I am a visual
sorter, but at least my VCR doesn't blink 12:00 (for more than a month
after a power out.)
6 Feb
6 Feb
10:29 a.m.
New subject: [ClassicCMP] Re: ClassicCMP Re: [ClassicCmp] Tag requested in Subject: line
Hi Mike,
I don't mind a subject thing, but maybe shorter?
PLEASE NO, NOT AT ALL!
Just look at the subject line of this message already, and I've seen worse
on later messages.
If Majordomo could delete the extra "Re: [ClassicCMP]" tags, leaving a
single "[ClassicCMP]" (followed by "Re:" as required) then fine. As it
is,
the current system makes a mess of the subject column making it difficult to
see message titles.
With the amount of traffic this list generates anything which makes it
easier to decide which messages to read and which not to read is highly
desirable - the current proliferation of superfluous tags makes it
considerably more difficult. :-(
As other people have pointed out, all mailers which allow sorting of mail
into folders will allow you to sort on various fields in the header. All you
have to do is look for the mailing list address in the "To:" field....
TTFN - Pete.
--
Hardware & Software Engineer. Sound Engineer.
Collector of Arcade Machines, Games Consoles & Obsolete Computers (esp DEC)
peter.pachla(a)wintermute.org.uk | www.wintermute.org.uk
--
5 Feb
5 Feb
10:37 a.m.
New subject: [ClassicCMP] Re: [ClassicCmp] Tag requested in Subject: line
I'd like to see a small tag be prefixed to the
Subject: line so that it's
easier to know that the email came from the Classic Computer list.
I suggest the Majordomo "config" file include a line like this:
subject_prefix = [ClassicCmp]
Oh, NO! I'd just like to point out that this makes sorting messages a
nightmare! PLUS it means you've got shorter subject lines. ARGGHHH!
Zane
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh(a)aracnet.com (primary) | Linux Enthusiast |
| healyzh(a)holonet.net (alternate) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
1:16 a.m.
New subject: [ClassicCMP] Re: Tag requested in Subject: line
Zane H. Healy wrote:
Jerome Fine replies:
I agree with the original request and I agree with Zane. Perhaps a compromise like:
subject_prefix = [CCmp] would do the job and still be just as identifiable. Even
then, if we take a little bit of extra time (about 10 seconds - much longer than it takes
me to type even this stuff in parenthesis), the original [CCmp] can be deleted. I
don't
know if the list software can also search for the presence of any imbedded [CCmp]
strings and eliminate those as well automatically.
Otherwise, I do prefer the prefix. Sorry Zane!
Sincerely yours,
Jerome Fine
I'd like to
see a small tag be prefixed to the Subject: line so that it's
easier to know that the email came from the Classic Computer list.
I suggest the Majordomo "config" file include a line like this:
subject_prefix = [ClassicCmp]
Oh, NO! I'd just like to point out that this
makes sorting messages a
nightmare! PLUS it means you've got shorter subject lines. ARGGHHH! 
2:12 p.m.
New subject: [ClassicCMP] Re: Tag requested in Subject: line
On Sat, 5 Feb 2000, Jerome Fine wrote:
Zane H. Healy wrote:
Jerome Fine replies:
I agree with the original request and I agree with Zane. Perhaps a compromise like:
subject_prefix = [CCmp] would do the job and still be just as identifiable. Even
then, if we take a little bit of extra time (about 10 seconds - much longer than it
takes
me to type even this stuff in parenthesis), the original [CCmp] can be deleted. I
don't
know if the list software can also search for the presence of any imbedded [CCmp]
strings and eliminate those as well automatically.
Otherwise, I do prefer the prefix. Sorry Zane!
Well, you could preface it with Re: as in Zane's previous example:
: Also what started out as:
: [ClassicCmp] Tag requested in Subject: line
: is now:
: Re: [ClassicCMP] Re: [ClassicCmp] Tag requested in Subject: line
: It will get worse. I'm was on a mailing list that does this with just
: a two letter id, and I've seen it creep most of the way across the subject.
8-)
- don
I'd
like to see a small tag be prefixed to the Subject: line so that it's
easier to know that the email came from the Classic Computer list.
I suggest the Majordomo "config" file include a line like this:
subject_prefix = [ClassicCmp]
Oh, NO! I'd just like to point out that this
makes sorting messages a
nightmare! PLUS it means you've got shorter subject lines. ARGGHHH! Sincerely yours,
Jerome Fine
4:09 p.m.
New subject: Why Tag's in subject lines are a BAD Thing!
Zane H. Healy wrote:
Jerome Fine replies:
I agree with the original request and I agree with Zane. Perhaps a
compromise like:
subject_prefix = [CCmp] would do the job and still be just as
identifiable. Even
then, if we take a little bit of extra time (about 10 seconds - much
longer than it takes
me to type even this stuff in parenthesis), the original [CCmp] can be
deleted. I don't
know if the list software can also search for the presence of any imbedded
[CCmp]
strings and eliminate those as well automatically.
Otherwise, I do prefer the prefix. Sorry Zane!
My *KEY* point/compaint/rant, is that it destroys the ability to sort the
messages by subject. I just did a quick sort by subject and got the
following results (this is a small subset, and you'll note I've split out
the specific thread I'm *trying* to follow):
<-->
[ClassicCMP] Re: ClassicCMP Re: [ClassicCmp] Tag requested in
[ClassicCMP] Re: ClassicCMP Re: [ClassicCmp] Tag requested in
Re: [ClassicCMP] Re: ClassicCMP Re: [ClassicCmp] Tag requested in
Subject: line
Re: [ClassicCMP] Re: ClassicCMP Re: [ClassicCmp] Tag requested in
Subject: line
<-->
[ClassicCMP] Re: Digital Prometrix Omnimap 111, DEC???
[ClassicCMP] Re: Disk size limits in VMS 5.4-1?
Re: [ClassicCMP] Re: Disk size limits in VMS 5.4-1?
Re: [ClassicCMP] Re: Disk size limits in VMS 5.4-1?
[ClassicCMP] Re: HTML in Email
[ClassicCMP] Re: HTML in Email
Re: [ClassicCMP] Re: HTML in Email
[ClassicCMP] Re: HTML: was Re: Announcement: CHANGES TO THE LIST
Re: [ClassicCMP] Re: HTML: was Re: Announcement: CHANGES TO THE LIST
[ClassicCMP] Re: I found an HP150 (model 45851A?)--how do I make it work?
<-->
[ClassicCMP] Re: Tag requested in Subject: line
Re: [ClassicCMP] Re: Tag requested in Subject: line
<-->
[ClassicCMP] Re: What's a WD2793A chip?
<-->
[ClassicCMP] Re: [ClassicCmp] Tag requested in Subject: line
[ClassicCMP] Re: [ClassicCmp] Tag requested in Subject: line
[ClassicCMP] Re: [ClassicCmp] Tag requested in Subject: line
Re: [ClassicCMP] Re: [ClassicCmp] Tag requested in Subject: line
Re: [ClassicCMP] Re: [ClassicCmp] Tag requested in Subject: line
Re: [ClassicCMP] Re: [ClassicCmp] Tag requested in Subject: line
[ClassicCMP] Re: [ClassicCmp] Tag requested in Subject: line
[ClassicCmp] Tag requested in Subject: line
<-->
As you can see from this example using tags in the subject line totally
breaks the ability to sort the messages by subject and follow a thread. It
doesn't matter if you change the tag to something of a more sensible
lenght, the ability to sort by subjects will still be lost!
Zane
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh(a)aracnet.com (primary) | Linux Enthusiast |
| healyzh(a)holonet.net (alternate) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
I'd
like to see a small tag be prefixed to the Subject: line so that it's
easier to know that the email came from the Classic Computer list.
I suggest the Majordomo "config" file include a line like this:
subject_prefix = [ClassicCmp]
Oh, NO! I'd just like to point out that this
makes sorting messages a
nightmare! PLUS it means you've got shorter subject lines. ARGGHHH! 
10:55 a.m.
New subject: [ClassicCMP] Re: [ClassicCmp] Tag requested in Subject: line
Why is it a nightmare? It's all the same for me (as far as software
sorting).
On Sat, 5 Feb 2000, Zane H. Healy wrote:
I'd like to
see a small tag be prefixed to the Subject: line so that it's
easier to know that the email came from the Classic Computer list.
I suggest the Majordomo "config" file include a line like this:
subject_prefix = [ClassicCmp]
Oh, NO! I'd just like to point out that this makes sorting messages a
nightmare! PLUS it means you've got shorter subject lines. ARGGHHH!
Zane
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh(a)aracnet.com (primary) | Linux Enthusiast |
| healyzh(a)holonet.net (alternate) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
12:57 p.m.
New subject: [ClassicCMP] Re: [ClassicCmp] Tag requested in Subject: line
Why is it a nightmare? It's all the same for me (as
far as software
sorting).
Because if you sort by subject so you can find an entire thread, you won't
find the entire thread. Furthermore, almost anyone that filters thier mail
into separate mailboxes shouldn't need that in the subject. I filter off
of finding "classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org" in the message headers.
Also what started out as:
[ClassicCmp] Tag requested in Subject: line
is now:
Re: [ClassicCMP] Re: [ClassicCmp] Tag requested in Subject: line
It will get worse. I'm was on a mailing list that does this with just a
two letter id, and I've seen it creep most of the way across the subject.
I will admit this might be handy if you're not filtering stuff into
different mailboxes/folders. Of course if you're active enough on the list
you should be able to recognize a message from the list, just by the
sender/subject!
Zane
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh(a)aracnet.com (primary) | Linux Enthusiast |
| healyzh(a)holonet.net (alternate) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
4:38 p.m.
New subject: [ClassicCmp] Tag requested in Subject: line
On Sat, 5 Feb 2000, Zane H. Healy wrote:
Ahh, point seen...
Why is it a
nightmare? It's all the same for me (as far as software
sorting).
Because if you sort by subject so you can find an entire thread, you won't
find the entire thread. Furthermore, almost anyone that filters thier mail 
11:21 a.m.
New subject: [ClassicCMP] Re: [ClassicCmp] Tag requested in Subject: line
I'm with Zane here (who uttered these words) putting [ClassicCMP] in the
header is a waste of space. There are plenty of unambiguous indicators in
the message headers that messages come from this list and most if not all
software will sort them correctly.
--Chuck
At 01:37 PM 2/5/00 -0800, you wrote:
Oh, NO! I'd just like to point out that this makes
sorting messages a
nightmare! PLUS it means you've got shorter subject lines. ARGGHHH!
11:49 a.m.
New subject: [ClassicCMP] Re: [ClassicCmp] Tag requested in Subject: line
Re:
I'm with Zane here (who uttered these words)
putting [ClassicCMP] in the
header is a waste of space. There are plenty of unambiguous indicators in
the message headers that messages come from this list and most if not all
software will sort them correctly.
--Chuck
At 01:37 PM 2/5/00 -0800, you wrote:
>Oh, NO! I'd just like to point out that this makes sorting messages a
>nightmare! PLUS it means you've got shorter subject lines. ARGGHHH!
I agree! In Pegasus, "new mail" window, this message's subject line is:
Re: [ClassicCMP] Re: [ClassicCmp] T
(yes, when I open the message, I see the full subject:
Re: [ClassicCMP] Re: [ClassicCmp] Tag requested in Subject: line
(yes, I have the "subject" column more than adequately sized!)
Stan Sieler
sieler(a)allegro.com
Stan Sieler sieler(a)allegro.com
www.allegro.com/sieler/wanted/index.html www.allegro.com/sieler
8911
days inactive
8915
days old
31 comments
20 participants
participants (20)
-
af-list＠wfi-inc.com -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
at258＠osfn.org -
cem14＠cornell.edu -
cmcmanis＠mcmanis.com -
dann＠greycat.com -
donm＠cts.com -
Hans.Franke＠mch20.sbs.de -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
jhfine＠idirect.com -
mac＠Wireless.Com -
marvin＠rain.org -
mcquiggi＠sfu.ca -
mikeford＠socal.rr.com -
peter.pachla＠wintermute.org.uk -
rigdonj＠intellistar.net -
spc＠armigeron.com -
ss＠allegro.com -
wilson＠dbit.dbit.com