From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ? Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 13:52:35 -0500 Message-ID: <12023.1294167155@gamaville.americas.hpqcorp.net> References: <4D0B24DA.2050201@gmail.com> <87ei8sae89.fsf@gnu.org> <87zkrg600j.fsf@gmail.com> Reply-To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=53803 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PaC0H-0004g7-2I for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Jan 2011 13:53:27 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PaBzr-0000LR-6d for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Jan 2011 13:53:04 -0500 Received: from g1t0028.austin.hp.com ([15.216.28.35]:22628) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PaBzq-0000Jv-UY for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Jan 2011 13:52:39 -0500 In-Reply-To: Message from =?us-ascii?Q?=3D=3Futf-8=3FB=3FxaB0xJtww6FuIE7Em?= =?us-ascii?Q?21lYw=3D=3D=3F=3D?= of "Tue\, 04 Jan 2011 18\:39\:56 +0100." <87zkrg600j.fsf@gmail.com> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: =?us-ascii?Q?=3D=3Futf-8=3FB=3FxaB0xJtww6FuIE7Em21lYw=3D=3D=3F=3D?= Cc: nicholas.dokos@hp.com, Org-mode ml , Bastien =C5=A0t=C4=9Bp=C3=A1n N=C4=9Bmec wrote: > FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects > of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable > (e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike > [Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject: > header space. >=20 > I have never understood why anyone would like anything like that. > Because I can scan my inbox at a glance and triage quickly. Here's what I see (with mh-e in emacs as my reader): ... 221+ 01/04 =C5=A0t=C4=9Bp=C3=A1n N=C4=9Bmec [Orgmode] Re: should the mai= l list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?< writes: > Hi Torste ... If I am in org-mode mode (so to speak), I'll look at it. If not, I will skip it for now and get back to it later. Having the mailing list markers is indispensable to me. I belong to quite a few MLs and the ones that don't have a marker are a PITA. Shortening the marker is fine: eliminating it is not. > If you want to somehow treat the mails from this list specially, why > don't you filter on the presence of the mailing list address in the > headers, for example? >=20 Because all of that needs additional setup, both at the front end to do the filtering and at the back end to make sure that I don't miss anything. And that needs debugging and continued maintenance (and missed emails when something goes wrong, which inevitably it will). I'd rather have the list software take care of it. Nick