26 Jun
2006
26 Jun
'06
8:02 a.m.
I find it difficult to distinguish some cctalk messages from spam. The
From: could be anyone, and the Subject: is not always technical enough
to recognize. Could your mailer add '[cctalk]' to every subject, if it
is not already there? This would also enable a filter to send the
message to a cctalk folder. It's a technique that I have seen with
other e-mail lists, and I like it.
--
Dick Hadsell 914-259-6320 Fax: 914-259-6499
Reply-to: hadsell at blueskystudios.com
Blue Sky Studios http://www.blueskystudios.com
44 South Broadway, White Plains, NY 10601
26 Jun
26 Jun
8:09 a.m.
On Monday 26 June 2006 11:02, Richard Hadsell wrote:
I find it difficult to distinguish some cctalk
messages from spam.
The From: could be anyone, and the Subject: is not always technical
enough to recognize. Could your mailer add '[cctalk]' to every
subject, if it is not already there? This would also enable a filter
to send the message to a cctalk folder. It's a technique that I have
seen with other e-mail lists, and I like it.
You can filter off of one of the mail headers, like for example:
List-Id: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk.classiccmp.org>
or perhaps this one:
Return-path: <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org>
or any of the other headers that have classiccmp.org in them...
That has the added advantage of not cluttering up the subject line with
extra garbage. :)
Pat
--
Purdue University ITAP/RCAC --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
8:15 a.m.
I find it
difficult to distinguish some cctalk messages from spam.
The From: could be anyone, and the Subject: is not always technical
enough to recognize. Could your mailer add '[cctalk]' to every
subject, if it is not already there? This would also enable a filter
to send the message to a cctalk folder. It's a technique that I have
seen with other e-mail lists, and I like it.
You can filter off of one of the mail headers, like for example:
List-Id: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk.classiccmp.org>
or perhaps this one:
Return-path: <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org> 
8:16 a.m.
I dont consider "[cctalk]" to be "extra garbage". This is not the
only list I have that doesent identify itself and it is frustrating
when you dont know which list sent it. MOST lists have an identifying
signature in the subject line!!!
On 6/26/06, Patrick Finnegan <pat at computer-refuge.org> wrote:
On Monday 26 June 2006 11:02, Richard Hadsell wrote:
--
Jim Isbell
"If you are not living on the edge, well then,
you are just taking up too much space."
I find it difficult to distinguish some cctalk
messages from spam.
The From: could be anyone, and the Subject: is not always technical
enough to recognize. Could your mailer add '[cctalk]' to every
subject, if it is not already there? This would also enable a filter
to send the message to a cctalk folder. It's a technique that I have
seen with other e-mail lists, and I like it.
You can filter off of one of the mail headers, like for example:
List-Id: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk.classiccmp.org>
or perhaps this one:
Return-path: <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org>
or any of the other headers that have classiccmp.org in them...
That has the added advantage of not cluttering up the subject line with
extra garbage. :)
Pat
--
Purdue University ITAP/RCAC --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
8:32 a.m.
On 6/26/06, Patrick Finnegan <pat at
computer-refuge.org> wrote:
> On Monday 26 June 2006 11:02, Richard Hadsell wrote:
> > I find it difficult to distinguish some cctalk messages from
> > spam. The From: could be anyone, and the Subject: is not always
> > technical enough to recognize. Could your mailer add '[cctalk]'
> > to every subject, if it is not already there? This would also
> > enable a filter to send the message to a cctalk folder. It's a
> > technique that I have seen with other e-mail lists, and I like
> > it.
>
> You can filter off of one of the mail headers, like for example:
>
> List-Id: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
> <cctalk.classiccmp.org>
>
> or perhaps this one:
>
> Return-path: <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org>
>
> or any of the other headers that have classiccmp.org in them...
>
> That has the added advantage of not cluttering up the subject line
> with extra garbage. :)
On Monday 26 June 2006 11:16, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
I dont consider "[cctalk]" to be "extra
garbage". This is not the
only list I have that doesent identify itself and it is frustrating
when you dont know which list sent it. MOST lists have an
identifying signature in the subject line!!!
But the point is that any half-way decent mail software of filtering
program can sort things based on other headers in the email, so why
bother eating up characters on the Subject line? At least on every
mail reader I've seen, there's a limited space for the subject line,
and being able to see 9 less characters "[cctalk] " of the subject can
be annoying. It's even worse on some lists I'm on that have a 15 or 16
character list name. which takes up 1/2 of the available subject line,
or more..
I'd hope that the people on this list are "computer literate" enough to
figure out how to configure their mail program to sort email by headers
(or use a paper or online manual to figure out how to do so). Of
course, if you don't use something that'll let you sort mail (eg,
procmail on UNIX/Linux or a decent mail reader on other platforms)
intelligently, that's another problem entirely.
Grumpy Pat
--
Purdue University ITAP/RCAC --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
10:03 a.m.
Computer litterate is not the question. ( have been designing
computers since the IBM 7070 in 1960) I have filters, yes, but I also
get a list of mail that I can scroll down without sorting the mail
first which to me is just an extra step that makes it harder. I like
scrolling doen the entire list of 300 post a day and clicking on the
ones I want to see then deleting the batch. Without an identifying
signature in the subject this is not possible and I am forced to use
"your" method of sorting into separate boxes then going to each box
and reading the mail there then going to the next box...etc....etc.
which I find tedious.
On 6/26/06, Patrick Finnegan <pat at computer-refuge.org> wrote:
--
Jim Isbell
"If you are not living on the edge, well then,
you are just taking up too much space."
On 6/26/06,
Patrick Finnegan <pat at computer-refuge.org> wrote:
> On Monday 26 June 2006 11:02, Richard Hadsell wrote:
> > I find it difficult to distinguish some cctalk messages from
> > spam. The From: could be anyone, and the Subject: is not always
> > technical enough to recognize. Could your mailer add '[cctalk]'
> > to every subject, if it is not already there? This would also
> > enable a filter to send the message to a cctalk folder. It's a
> > technique that I have seen with other e-mail lists, and I like
> > it.
>
> You can filter off of one of the mail headers, like for example:
>
> List-Id: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
> <cctalk.classiccmp.org>
>
> or perhaps this one:
>
> Return-path: <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org>
>
> or any of the other headers that have classiccmp.org in them...
>
> That has the added advantage of not cluttering up the subject line
> with extra garbage. :)
On Monday 26 June 2006 11:16, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
I dont consider "[cctalk]" to be
"extra garbage". This is not the
only list I have that doesent identify itself and it is frustrating
when you dont know which list sent it. MOST lists have an
identifying signature in the subject line!!!
But the point is that any half-way decent mail software of filtering
program can sort things based on other headers in the email, so why
bother eating up characters on the Subject line? At least on every
mail reader I've seen, there's a limited space for the subject line,
and being able to see 9 less characters "[cctalk] " of the subject can
be annoying. It's even worse on some lists I'm on that have a 15 or 16
character list name. which takes up 1/2 of the available subject line,
or more..
I'd hope that the people on this list are "computer literate" enough to
figure out how to configure their mail program to sort email by headers
(or use a paper or online manual to figure out how to do so). Of
course, if you don't use something that'll let you sort mail (eg,
procmail on UNIX/Linux or a decent mail reader on other platforms)
intelligently, that's another problem entirely.
Grumpy Pat
--
Purdue University ITAP/RCAC --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
10:50 a.m.
Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
Computer litterate is not the question. ( have been
designing
computers since the IBM 7070 in 1960) I have filters, yes, but I also
get a list of mail that I can scroll down without sorting the mail
first which to me is just an extra step that makes it harder. I like
scrolling doen the entire list of 300 post a day and clicking on the
ones I want to see then deleting the batch. Without an identifying
signature in the subject this is not possible and I am forced to use
"your" method of sorting into separate boxes then going to each box
and reading the mail there then going to the next box...etc....etc.
which I find tedious.
Okay, then don't sort into separate boxes, but rather color the email a
different color based on the filter. Thunderbird, Outlook, even *nix
stuff like Mutt can highlight subject lines in a list in different
colors, so just flag all of your mailing list email a different color
based on the filter.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
12:47 p.m.
Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
Computer litterate is not the question. ( have been
designing
computers since the IBM 7070 in 1960) I have filters, yes, but I also
get a list of mail that I can scroll down without sorting the mail
first which to me is just an extra step that makes it harder. I like
scrolling doen the entire list of 300 post a day and clicking on the
ones I want to see then deleting the batch. Without an identifying
signature in the subject this is not possible and I am forced to use
"your" method of sorting into separate boxes then going to each box
and reading the mail there then going to the next box...etc....etc.
which I find tedious.
Can your mail client colour (or otherwise mark) messages according to a set of
rules? Maybe that's an option if you don't want to move them based on source
to their own folder (and assuming that your mail client can't rewrite the
subject line to your choosing)?
(I just checked Thunderbird, and to my surprise it doesn't seem to have an
option to pipe the message through an external process based on rules, which
surprised me. I'm sure I've seen other mail clients that can do this)
cheers
Jules
8:33 a.m.
Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
I dont consider "[cctalk]" to be "extra
garbage". This is not the
only list I have that doesent identify itself and it is frustrating
when you dont know which list sent it. MOST lists have an identifying
signature in the subject line!!!
CCTALK identifies itself in the header. Most other lists do too. In
addition, most other lists also waste space in the subject line too.
This is garbage, because it's completely unnecessary, and more than
that, is unreliable.
Peace... Sridhar
9:45 a.m.
Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
I dont consider "[cctalk]" to be "extra
garbage". This is not the
only list I have that doesent identify itself and it is frustrating
when you dont know which list sent it. MOST lists have an identifying
signature in the subject line!!!
But surely a mail client or locally-running processor could do that for you if
you so wanted, based on the list headers? So it's already possible for those
who wish to do it, and at the same time those who don't think it's necessary
don't have to do anything.
Personally I'm with Patrick on this one - I find it annoying on lists that do
it because it pushes the meaningful subject line over more than it needs to
be, (even more so if people change subject lines when replying (e.g. "xxx
was: yyy" and don't bother to edit out the automatically-added text)
I just filter based on list headers; everything from classiccmp goes into one
folder, other mailing lists go into their own folder etc. and it all just
works :-)
cheers
Jules
8:54 a.m.
>>> I find it annoying on lists that do it
because it pushes the
meaningful subject line over more than it needs to be, (even
more so if
people change subject lines when replying (e.g. "xxx was: yyy" and don't
bother to edit out the automatically-added text)
I definitely agree. Many times I check email from my Treo, or I'll have my
mail client open along with a dozen+ other windows, so it's important to
make efficient use of the column width.
All cctalk messages in my inbox go to a separate folder and I've never had
any problems with the filters not working because of being based on header
info instead of a subject line identifier -- and I'm probably one of the
LEAST technical people on this list.
6 Jul
6 Jul
1:27 a.m.
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 16:45 +0000, Jules Richardson wrote:
Personally I'm with Patrick on this one - I find
it annoying on lists that do
it because it pushes the meaningful subject line over more than it needs to
be, (even more so if people change subject lines when replying (e.g. "xxx
was: yyy" and don't bother to edit out the automatically-added text)
The single place where I've found this approach to have merit is in the
case of the Debian lists - now, Debian has an incredible amount of lists
used for discussing work rather than doing it (:)), and discussions are
sometimes moved between lists and so on. iIn this case, the ability to
track the path of an email might be useful. But not in this case, I'm
sounding in with the majority here. :)
-toresbe :)
5:08 a.m.
Tore Sinding Bekkedal wrote:
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 16:45 +0000, Jules Richardson
wrote:
I just had this discussion with a moderator of one of the freecycle lists,
where they do tag subject lines.
One interesting point he had was that it's useful in case the list address
ever changes - which isn't relevant here, but is perhaps a valid point for
mailing lists hosted with people such as Yahoo - who seem to have a habit of
dropping groups/lists with no warning to their members.
He did mention though that tagging subject lines was pretty much the norm back
in BITNET days (and also that VMS made it rather awkward to see message
headers other than the typical subject/date/sender) - so it's perhaps more
historically correct. Doesn't make it right, of course, but it's an
interesting observation :-)
cheers
Jules
Personally I'm with Patrick on this one - I
find it annoying on lists that do
it because it pushes the meaningful subject line over more than it needs to
be, (even more so if people change subject lines when replying (e.g. "xxx
was: yyy" and don't bother to edit out the automatically-added text)
The single place where I've found this approach to have merit is in the
case of the Debian lists
26 Jun
26 Jun
10:46 a.m.
Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
I dont consider "[cctalk]" to be "extra
garbage". This is not the
only list I have that doesent identify itself and it is frustrating
when you dont know which list sent it. MOST lists have an identifying
signature in the subject line!!!
Yes, and most email programs allow you to filter based on other content.
I have no problem at all filtering cctalk into it's own folder. I use
Thunderbird, and my filter is... checking... "to or cc" is "cctalk,
cctech, classiccmp.org".
I've attached a screenshot of my filter settings in case it will help.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
10:56 a.m.
Jim Leonard wrote:
Yes, and most email programs allow you to filter based
on other content.
I have no problem at all filtering cctalk into it's own folder. I use
Thunderbird, and my filter is... checking... "to or cc" is "cctalk,
cctech, classiccmp.org".
I've been using a similar filter in Tbird and Messenger Pro. Works quite well,
99.9% of the time.
I've attached a screenshot of my filter settings
in case it will help.
Um.. the classiccmp ML server strips attachments from all the messages it
forwards. You could use something like Photobucket or Tinypic.com if you wanted.
--
Phil. | Kitsune: Acorn RiscPC SA202 64M+6G ViewFinder
philpem at dsl.pipex.com | Cheetah: Athlon64 3200+ A8VDeluxeV2 512M+100G
http://www.philpem.me.uk/ | Tiger: Toshiba SatPro4600 Celeron700 256M+40G
2:45 p.m.
> On Monday 26 June 2006 11:02, Richard Hadsell
wrote:
> > I find it difficult to distinguish some cctalk messages from spam.
...snip...
> >Could your mailer add '[cctalk]' to
every subject, if it is not already
> >there?
Short answer... No.
Longer answer... I used to be with you, I prefered having the mailing list
put a tag in each subject line. However, the list membership at large
resoundingly over-ruled me there and I've actually come around to the other
way of thinking. This topic has come up many times before, and often becomes
both long and hostile. But the overwhelming majority of people don't want
the tag in the subject line, so I don't have that option turned on. If the
majority changes stances, then we'll do it :) I must respectly submit that
most people who want the subject line tag are those who didn't know that one
can sort into folders based on header criteria which is actually much more
accurate and "sensible". It does involve a one time setup of taking an extra
30 seconds to view the headers of a classiccmp list email and see what we
provide for you to key on. I'm sure you'll find it's adequate.
In addition, cctalk/cctech traffic is run through a very very effective
antivirus and spam processing engine. You won't get spam on the cclist.
Jay West
3:15 p.m.
Jay West wrote:
those who didn't know that one can sort into
folders based on header
criteria which is actually much more accurate and "sensible".
Well, now they do. :-) Besides, that's one of the reasons you can add
your own headers (not that anyone does that much any more).
In addition, cctalk/cctech traffic is run through a
very very effective
antivirus and spam processing engine. You won't get spam on the cclist.
Well, at least not from people who aren't already on the list ;-)
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
4:11 p.m.
Jay West wrote:
I
must respectly submit that most people who want the subject line tag are
those who didn't know that one can sort into folders based on header
criteria which is actually much more accurate and "sensible".
I'd look a it this way:
1) It's less server-side processing to do it the way it's currently done.
2) It's less bandwidth to do it the way it's currently done.
3) It's far easier for someone to process data at destination based on
filters than it is for someone to remove data at destination that
they consider unnecessary.
The first two points don't seem like that big a deal - but these things do add
up in the grand scheme of things!
cheers
Jules
27 Jun
27 Jun
7:58 a.m.
Jay West wrote:
Longer answer... I used to be with you, I prefered
having the mailing
list put a tag in each subject line. However, the list membership at
large resoundingly over-ruled me there and I've actually come around
to the other way of thinking. This topic has come up many times
before, and often becomes both long and hostile. But the overwhelming
majority of people don't want the tag in the subject line, so I don't
have that option turned on. If the majority changes stances, then
we'll do it :) I must respectly submit that most people who want the
subject line tag are those who didn't know that one can sort into
folders based on header criteria which is actually much more accurate
and "sensible". It does involve a one time setup of taking an extra 30
seconds to view the headers of a classiccmp list email and see what we
provide for you to key on. I'm sure you'll find it's adequate.
I didn't intend to drag up a subject that has been exhausted before.
I'm clearly in the minority, and I can live with that. I do prefer, as
one other responder described, to see all my new e-mails in one place.
I don't like to jump around to multiple folders, but I can live with it
for one list.
In addition, cctalk/cctech traffic is run through a
very very
effective antivirus and spam processing engine. You won't get spam on
the cclist.
That's nice, but not all of my messages are filtered through your list.
--
Dick Hadsell 914-259-6320 Fax: 914-259-6499
Reply-to: hadsell at blueskystudios.com
Blue Sky Studios http://www.blueskystudios.com
44 South Broadway, White Plains, NY 10601
26 Jun
26 Jun
2:50 p.m.
Jim wrote....
This is not the only list I have that doesent identify
itself and it is
frustrating
when you dont know which list sent it. MOST lists have an identifying
signature in the subject line!!!
As you say, ClassicCMP isn't the ONLY list you have that "doesn't identify
itself"[1]. Perhaps there is a reason why we're not the only one. You're
correct that most lists do have some text in the subject line, but I hardly
think numbers alone is a cogent argument... that's the same logic that made
windows the predominant OS these days ;)
Jay West
[1] I beg to differ with your characterization of ClassicCMP list traffic
"not identifying itself". It actually does identify itself in a way that
EVERY (yes, EVERY) mailing list identifies itself. Unlike the subject line
tag, which not all lists do. It's just not identifying itself in the way
your eyes are looking for. In fact, it's identifying itself in a less error
prone manner that is much MORE common (actually, 100%, cause pretty much all
lists have headers identifying the source).
3:20 p.m.
This is a ridiculous argument. Just shoot down mine as saying
"everyone else is doing it" and that makes yours right???
First, when I said this list was NOT the only one, it was because
there is ONE other that also does not identify itself...only one. But
the point was, not that most do, but that when MORE than one do not it
becomes a problem. If this was the only one then I could identify it
by the lack of a signature. But because this one and the Chunky Child
Mothers Porn site are the only two that dont identify themselves, I
just dont know which one I am opening.
As someone said, a simple signature such as an "*" or an "^" would
not
take away from the length of the subject enough to cause anyone a
problem.
As far as identifying itself in the header, that really opens a can of
worms. If I allow my mail program to display the headers along with
the subject line in the download list then my 300 lines of test would
become 3000 lines of text since MANY messages come with headers with
multiple addresses in them. My software displays the entire header,
not just the address of the sender.
On 6/26/06, Jay West <jwest at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Jim wrote....
--
Jim Isbell
"If you are not living on the edge, well then,
you are just taking up too much space."
This is not the only list I have that doesent
identify itself and it is
frustrating
when you dont know which list sent it. MOST lists have an identifying
signature in the subject line!!!
As you say, ClassicCMP isn't the ONLY list you have that "doesn't identify
itself"[1]. Perhaps there is a reason why we're not the only one. You're
correct that most lists do have some text in the subject line, but I hardly
think numbers alone is a cogent argument... that's the same logic that made
windows the predominant OS these days ;)
Jay West
[1] I beg to differ with your characterization of ClassicCMP list traffic
"not identifying itself". It actually does identify itself in a way that
EVERY (yes, EVERY) mailing list identifies itself. Unlike the subject line
tag, which not all lists do. It's just not identifying itself in the way
your eyes are looking for. In fact, it's identifying itself in a less error
prone manner that is much MORE common (actually, 100%, cause pretty much all
lists have headers identifying the source).
3:33 p.m.
Jim wrote....
This is a ridiculous argument. Just shoot down mine
as saying
"everyone else is doing it" and that makes yours right???
I apologize, I
must not have been clear. I was saying your statement that
ClassicCMP should tag the subject because every other list does was not a
great convincer. I was not at all saying classiccmp was right because
everyone else does it our way (which isn't correct, obviously, as you {and
I} stated).
But because this one and the Chunky Child Mothers Porn
site are the only
two that dont identify themselves, I just dont know which one I am
opening.
I would think the subject lines by themselves would easily distinguish
between these two ;) I hope ;)
If I allow my mail program to display the headers
along....
Woah... no one said, inferred, nor suggested anything of the sort! I
don't
think most would consider having to wade through headers on each email is a
good solution. But, we're here to help. Exactly what email client are you
using? I bet we can find a solution for you with the win-win of getting you
more familiar with your software.
Best regards,
Jay West
4:04 p.m.
OK, I am listening, is there a way for me to identify the different
messages from two different lists as they present themselves when
Gmail is opened. I dont consider sorting them into mail boxes a
viable method because then I have to go to each mail box individually
and sort them out there. I prefer just taking the list as it appears
(usually about 250 to 400 posts), hitting the "Mark ALL" key then
going down the left side and unmarking the few that I see where the
subject interests me. At the bottom I hit "Delete All" to delete all
those still left marked. Then I go back to look at the few I had
unmarked. Its simple and does not involve the possibility that I
might forget to check a particular "Box" or have to check ALL
"Boxes"
to see which received mail after the sort.
I may be missing a "better way" but I doubt it. This one has evolved
over the last three years and really works well.
On 6/26/06, Jay West <jwest at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Jim wrote....
--
Jim Isbell
"If you are not living on the edge, well then,
you are just taking up too much space."
This is a ridiculous argument. Just shoot down
mine as saying
"everyone else is doing it" and that makes yours right???
I apologize, I
must not have been clear. I was saying your statement that
ClassicCMP should tag the subject because every other list does was not a
great convincer. I was not at all saying classiccmp was right because
everyone else does it our way (which isn't correct, obviously, as you {and
I} stated).
But because this one and the Chunky Child Mothers
Porn site are the only
two that dont identify themselves, I just dont know which one I am
opening.
I would think the subject lines by themselves would easily distinguish
between these two ;) I hope ;)
If I allow my mail program to display the headers
along....
Woah... no one said, inferred, nor suggested anything of the sort! I
don't
think most would consider having to wade through headers on each email is a
good solution. But, we're here to help. Exactly what email client are you
using? I bet we can find a solution for you with the win-win of getting you
more familiar with your software.
Best regards,
Jay West
4:34 p.m.
Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
Gmail is opened. I dont consider sorting them into
mail boxes a
^^^^^
Found the problem.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
4:34 p.m.
Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
OK, I am listening, is there a way for me to identify
the different
messages from two different lists as they present themselves when
Gmail is opened. I dont consider sorting them into mail boxes a
viable method because then I have to go to each mail box individually
and sort them out there. I prefer just taking the list as it appears
(usually about 250 to 400 posts), hitting the "Mark ALL" key then
going down the left side and unmarking the few that I see where the
subject interests me. At the bottom I hit "Delete All" to delete all
those still left marked. Then I go back to look at the few I had
unmarked. Its simple and does not involve the possibility that I
might forget to check a particular "Box" or have to check ALL
"Boxes"
to see which received mail after the sort.
Is this a web-based application?
5:48 p.m.
Jay West wrote:
he is on gmail. Unless there is a way to get to the headers I don't know
about, gmail is useless.
He sorts his gmail by subject then highlights ranges to get them sorted
by list.
I am not a gmail fan, but what are you going to do if you aren't paying
anything for it, and that is what mail is worth to you.
He may be using a pop client, but I haven't read enough of yours
and his threads to see if that is so. Gmail's interface is fast and cheep
which is okay for the price, but I don't care for it.
I already have my own domain and pop3 to mozilla, so i use
mozilla and filter on who sent me the email (I use sent
to "feedme at cctalk.com). if it is there, off into the cctalk bucket.
anyway, that may be his problem, or not.
jim
7:38 p.m.
I switched to Gmail after a couple of HD crashes that destroyed my
email archives. Gmail stores it on their HD...actually on several to
give back up and I have 3 GB of storage for the email and its free.
Now when the HD crashes...or I switch providers...I still have ALL my
email, addresses and archives and addresses.
On 6/26/06, jim stephens <jwstephens at msm.umr.edu> wrote:
Jay West wrote:
he is on gmail. Unless there is a way to get to the headers I don't know
about, gmail is useless.
He sorts his gmail by subject then highlights ranges to get them sorted
by list.
I am not a gmail fan, but what are you going to do if you aren't paying
anything for it, and that is what mail is worth to you.
He may be using a pop client, but I haven't read enough of yours
and his threads to see if that is so. Gmail's interface is fast and cheep
which is okay for the price, but I don't care for it.
I already have my own domain and pop3 to mozilla, so i use
mozilla and filter on who sent me the email (I use sent
to "feedme at cctalk.com). if it is there, off into the cctalk bucket.
anyway, that may be his problem, or not.
jim
--
Jim Isbell
"If you are not living on the edge, well then,
you are just taking up too much space."
7:51 p.m.
Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
I switched to Gmail after a couple of HD crashes that
destroyed my
email archives. Gmail stores it on their HD...actually on several to
give back up and I have 3 GB of storage for the email and its free.
Now when the HD crashes...or I switch providers...I still have ALL my
email, addresses and archives and addresses.
I use an IMAP account. The server's run by a friend of mine, and I
basically get 100GB for free. And the machine is RAID'ed and backed up
constantly.
Peace... Sridhar
3:33 p.m.
In the grand tradition of UK-based internet messageboards I'm going to grab
some popcorn and a keg of beer and watch this one unfold, because it's just
going to get better and better :)
Not trimmed *and* top-posted. I can feel people exploding as I type.
/devil's advocate
On 26/6/06 23:20, "Jim Isbell, W5JAI" <jim.isbell at gmail.com> wrote:
This is a ridiculous argument. Just shoot down mine
as saying
"everyone else is doing it" and that makes yours right???
First, when I said this list was NOT the only one, it was because
there is ONE other that also does not identify itself...only one. But
the point was, not that most do, but that when MORE than one do not it
becomes a problem. If this was the only one then I could identify it
by the lack of a signature. But because this one and the Chunky Child
Mothers Porn site are the only two that dont identify themselves, I
just dont know which one I am opening.
As someone said, a simple signature such as an "*" or an "^" would
not
take away from the length of the subject enough to cause anyone a
problem.
As far as identifying itself in the header, that really opens a can of
worms. If I allow my mail program to display the headers along with
the subject line in the download list then my 300 lines of test would
become 3000 lines of text since MANY messages come with headers with
multiple addresses in them. My software displays the entire header,
not just the address of the sender.
On 6/26/06, Jay West <jwest at classiccmp.org> wrote:
--
Adrian/Witchy
Binary Dinosaurs creator/curator
Www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk - the UK's biggest private home computer
collection?
Jim wrote....
This is not the only list I have that doesent
identify itself and it is
frustrating
when you dont know which list sent it. MOST lists have an identifying
signature in the subject line!!!
As you say, ClassicCMP isn't the ONLY list you have that "doesn't identify
itself"[1]. Perhaps there is a reason why we're not the only one. You're
correct that most lists do have some text in the subject line, but I hardly
think numbers alone is a cogent argument... that's the same logic that made
windows the predominant OS these days ;)
Jay West
[1] I beg to differ with your characterization of ClassicCMP list traffic
"not identifying itself". It actually does identify itself in a way that
EVERY (yes, EVERY) mailing list identifies itself. Unlike the subject line
tag, which not all lists do. It's just not identifying itself in the way
your eyes are looking for. In fact, it's identifying itself in a less error
prone manner that is much MORE common (actually, 100%, cause pretty much all
lists have headers identifying the source).
6:17 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Jim Isbell, W5JAI once stated:
First, when I said this list was NOT the only one, it was because
there is ONE other that also does not identify itself...only one. But
the point was, not that most do, but that when MORE than one do not it
becomes a problem. If this was the only one then I could identify it
by the lack of a signature. But because this one and the Chunky Child
Mothers Porn site are the only two that dont identify themselves, I
just dont know which one I am opening.
I'm on another list that doesn't identify itself on the subject line
(http://we.hates-software.com/) so that's at least three lists on the
Internet that doesn't munge the Subject line.
As far as identifying itself in the header, that
really opens a can of
worms. If I allow my mail program to display the headers along with
the subject line in the download list then my 300 lines of test would
become 3000 lines of text since MANY messages come with headers with
multiple addresses in them. My software displays the entire header,
not just the address of the sender.
Can you not select the headers you wish to see? The one I key off for
each mailing list is List-Id:. I think even elm will allow you to select
which headers you want to see, and I was using *that* way back in 1988 (and
I only in the past month or so switched to mutt).
-spc (Who got to recognize the members of this list by sight ... )
27 Jun
27 Jun
4:08 a.m.
And thusly were the wise words spake by Jim Isbell, W5JAI
First, when I said this list was NOT the only one, it was because
there is ONE other that also does not identify itself...only one. But
the point was, not that most do, but that when MORE than one do not it
becomes a problem. If this was the only one then I could identify it
by the lack of a signature. But because this one and the Chunky Child
Mothers Porn site are the only two that dont identify themselves, I
just dont know which one I am opening.
The cbm-hackers mailing list does not identify itself in the
Subject line...
Cheers,
Bryan
26 Jun
26 Jun
11:13 a.m.
Richard Hadsell wrote:
I find it difficult to distinguish some cctalk
messages from spam.
I subscribe to all my mailing lists under a special ID so that the
mail id "To:" has that in it, then filter off that.
It doesn't matter what the list puts in what header then. Helps
to have your own mail domain though, or an account with a lot
of aliases allowed.
Jim
2:54 p.m.
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 11:02:02 -0400
Richard Hadsell <hadsell at blueskystudios.com> wrote:
I find it difficult to distinguish some cctalk
messages from spam.
From my ~/.procmailrc:
:0
* ^Sender: owner-classiccmp at classiccmp.org
classiccmp/.
I.e. filter all mails that match the "Sender:" header into folder
classiccmp.
--
tsch??,
Jochen
Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/
10:47 p.m.
On Monday 26 June 2006 11:02 am, Richard Hadsell wrote:
I find it difficult to distinguish some cctalk
messages from spam. The
From: could be anyone, and the Subject: is not always technical enough
to recognize. Could your mailer add '[cctalk]' to every subject, if it
is not already there? This would also enable a filter to send the
message to a cctalk folder. It's a technique that I have seen with
other e-mail lists, and I like it.
I just checked my filters, as I already have mail for this list going to its
own folder, and the filter is looking ad "list-id". Dunno what you're
using, but it works here...
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin
27 Jun
27 Jun
5:12 a.m.
On Monday 26 June 2006 11:02 am, Richard Hadsell wrote:
I find it difficult to distinguish some cctalk
messages from spam. The
From: could be anyone, and the Subject: is not always technical enough
to recognize. Could your mailer add '[cctalk]' to every subject, if it
is not already there? This would also enable a filter to send the
message to a cctalk folder. It's a technique that I have seen with
other e-mail lists, and I like it.
I always think of such peglegs as subject line SPAM. It takes away
usefull information espacialy at the point I peek first, and replaces
it by useless repitation. To identify the list, the Sender: and
List-ID: lines are already quite usable.
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa 8.0 am 28/29.April 2007 in Muenchen
http://www.vcfe.org/
6744
days inactive
6754
days old
34 comments
19 participants
participants (19)
-
bpope＠wordstock.com -
dgy＠DakotaCom.Net -
drb＠msu.edu -
evan＠snarc.net -
hadsell＠blueskystudios.com -
Hans.Franke＠siemens.com -
jim.isbell＠gmail.com -
jkunz＠unixag-kl.fh-kl.de -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
jwest＠classiccmp.org -
jwstephens＠msm.umr.edu -
pat＠computer-refuge.org -
philpem＠dsl.pipex.com -
ploopster＠gmail.com -
rtellason＠verizon.net -
spc＠conman.org -
toresbe＠ifi.uio.no -
trixter＠oldskool.org -
witchy＠binarydinosaurs.co.uk