From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: Re: Splitting mailing list Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:14:44 -0500 Message-ID: <24917.1298909684@alphaville.dokosmarshall.org> References: <87k4gldb1s.fsf@keller.adm.naquadah.org> <87pqqdprxe.fsf@altern.org> <20110228074935.bf0d7ebf.alantyree@gmail.com> <74194.1298847224@iu.edu> <87wrkk8mip.fsf@altern.org> <87pqqc8iin.fsf@keller.adm.naquadah.org> <87bp1wqqg0.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=38557 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pu5ke-0002n1-Ul for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:15:13 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pu5ka-000320-Fr for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:15:12 -0500 Received: from vms173017pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.17]:55344) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pu5ka-00031n-CS for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:15:08 -0500 Received: from alphaville.dokosmarshall.org ([unknown] [173.76.32.106]) by vms173017.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0LHC00A9954KOL60@vms173017.mailsrvcs.net> for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:14:51 -0600 (CST) In-reply-to: Message from Bastien of "Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:44:15 +0100." <87bp1wqqg0.fsf@gnu.org> 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: Bastien Cc: mfo@abc.se, "Andrew J. Korty" , nicholas.dokos@hp.com, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, Carsten Dominik Bastien wrote: > Julien Danjou writes: > > > On Mon, Feb 28 2011, Bastien wrote: > >> I changed the [Orgmode] tag to [O]. > > > > Couldn't you just drop it? > > > > Seriously, this [O] is useless and ridiculous. > Not to me. > No, it's useful to people who filter emails through the subject line. > Just to clarify my usage (since I was one of the people who argued for keeping a tag): I don't have an MUA filter for this (that would be easy enough to change) - the filter is my eyes: if I have time to spend on org-mode, I will look at an email tagged [Orgmode] [fn:1] If not, I skip it. If there is no distinguishing characteristic at this level, I have to resort to other methods just to see whether the email is relevant to me at this time (usually the author name is enough to classify the email correctly, but not always of course, in which case I might have to read (some of) the email to decide.) The tag saves me time. I sympathise with Samuel's reasons for maximizing information, hence I did not oppose the shortening of the tag. But this is the second time that I have had to defend keeping the tag and I hope that the rest of you will sympathise with my reasons for keeping the tag. Thanks, Nick Footnotes: [fn:1] or [Org] or [O] - I would have preferred [Org] but I'm willing to live with [O].