[Dovecot] Mailing list's prefix
Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it? It seems kind of annoying to me whenever I happen to think about it.
On 3/4/10 3:59 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it? It seems kind of annoying to me whenever I happen to think about it.
Only people who deserve to have them break. ;-)
It's 2010. List-Id, already.
-- Braden McDaniel braden@endoframe.com
On 2010-03-04 4:04 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
On 3/4/10 3:59 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it? It seems kind of annoying to me whenever I happen to think about it.
Only people who deserve to have them break. ;-)
It's 2010. List-Id, already.
+1
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 4 March 2010 22:04, Braden McDaniel braden@endoframe.com wrote:
On 3/4/10 3:59 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it? It seems kind of annoying to me whenever I happen to think about it.
Only people who deserve to have them break. ;-)
It's 2010. List-Id, already.
+1
-- B. Johannessen
I would have preferred this be a private reply but I like to honor the sender's request re Reply-To:.
I have a slight preference for keeping the [Dovecot] prefix in the Subject: header, as it makes it really obvious to me where a message in my inbox comes from. I have never liked to pre-sort incoming messages into separate folders. The fact that the prefix is relativelyh short also helps.
H
Harlan Stenn wrote:
I have a slight preference for keeping the [Dovecot] prefix in the Subject: header, as it makes it really obvious to me where a message in my inbox comes from. I have never liked to pre-sort incoming messages into separate folders. The fact that the prefix is relativelyh short also helps. A very simple procmail recipe can add those prefixes for you and you won't have to worry whether the list has them or not.
-- W | It's not a bug - it's an undocumented feature. +-------------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley M. Kirchner mailto:ashley@pcraft.com . 303.442.6410 x130 IT Director / SysAdmin / Websmith . 800.441.3873 x130 Photo Craft Imaging . 2901 55th Street http://www.pcraft.com ..... . . . Boulder, CO 80301, U.S.A.
Quoting "Harlan Stenn" Harlan.Stenn@pfcs.com:
I would have preferred this be a private reply but I like to honor the sender's request re Reply-To:.
I have a slight preference for keeping the [Dovecot] prefix in the Subject: header, as it makes it really obvious to me where a message in my inbox comes from. I have never liked to pre-sort incoming messages into separate folders. The fact that the prefix is relativelyh short also helps.
H
I think those of us who don't filter are benefited the most by having
the prefix. I'm on a couple lists that aren't filtered, though not as
high traffic.
I don't read ALL email, and would prefer to delete non-relevant emails
without opening the message. Without a prefix, I sometimes have a
hard time telling if a problem is directed to me (personal/biz
support) or a list when I delete in bulk via thin clients (iPhone,
Horde).
Rick
It's a shame that this isn't a per-user option. mailman already enforces adding the prefix if it isn't present so there's no reason for it to be a global option. Looks like this feature request has been open for 5 years. :(
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=350103&aid=1104433&group_id=103
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Rick Romero wrote:
Quoting "Harlan Stenn" Harlan.Stenn@pfcs.com:
I would have preferred this be a private reply but I like to honor the sender's request re Reply-To:.
I have a slight preference for keeping the [Dovecot] prefix in the Subject: header, as it makes it really obvious to me where a message in my inbox comes from. I have never liked to pre-sort incoming messages into separate folders. The fact that the prefix is relativelyh short also helps.
H
I think those of us who don't filter are benefited the most by having the prefix. I'm on a couple lists that aren't filtered, though not as high traffic.
I don't read ALL email, and would prefer to delete non-relevant emails without opening the message. Without a prefix, I sometimes have a hard time telling if a problem is directed to me (personal/biz support) or a list when I delete in bulk via thin clients (iPhone, Horde).
+1
I let lower traffic lists land in my inbox. I eat my own dogfood as well as far as mail is concerned, and we don't let users configure procmail (at some point they'll get basic sieve support). I also find myself checking email quite often on my phone, and seeing the listname in the subject is very helpful.
Charles
Rick
On 3/4/10 10:59 PM +0200 Timo Sirainen wrote:
Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it? It seems kind of annoying to me whenever I happen to think about it.
Do you really need to ask? You'd definitely break a lot of filters. Don't let that stop you. :) FWIW I hate those prefixes.
On 2/25/10 2:10 PM -0700 Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
A very simple procmail recipe can add those prefixes for you
or remove them.
-frank
Frank Cusack wrote:
On 2/25/10 2:10 PM -0700 Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
A very simple procmail recipe can add those prefixes for youor remove them.
Agreed, though I was focusing on those who have a preference to keeping them. :)
-- W | It's not a bug - it's an undocumented feature. +-------------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley M. Kirchner mailto:ashley@pcraft.com . 303.442.6410 x130 IT Director / SysAdmin / Websmith . 800.441.3873 x130 Photo Craft Imaging . 2901 55th Street http://www.pcraft.com ..... . . . Boulder, CO 80301, U.S.A.
Quoting "Ashley M. Kirchner" ashley@pcraft.com:
Frank Cusack wrote:
On 2/25/10 2:10 PM -0700 Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
A very simple procmail recipe can add those prefixes for you or remove them.
Agreed, though I was focusing on those who have a preference to
keeping them. :)
Yeah.. procmail filter to modify the subject would satisfy me.
I'm by no means a procmail expert, but this seems to work (though
[Dovecot] gets put before the Re:)
:0 fhw
- ^List-Id:.*Dovecot Mailing List
{
:0 fhw
- ^Subject:\/.* | formail -I "Subject: [dovecot] $MATCH" }
Rick
On 2010-03-04 15:27:20 -0600, Rick Romero wrote:
I'm by no means a procmail expert, but this seems to work (though [Dovecot] gets put before the Re:)
:0 fhw
- ^List-Id:.*Dovecot Mailing List { :0 fhw
- ^Subject:\/.* | formail -I "Subject: [dovecot] $MATCH" }
and with an LDA that speaks only sieve? how do you do it there?
darix-- openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux openSUSE is good for you www.opensuse.org
Quoting "Marcus Rueckert" darix@opensu.se:
On 2010-03-04 15:27:20 -0600, Rick Romero wrote:
I'm by no means a procmail expert, but this seems to work (though [Dovecot] gets put before the Re:)
and with an LDA that speaks only sieve? how do you do it there?
This is better for procmail (doesn't change Subject if [Dovecot]
already there)
:0 fhw
- ^List-Id:.*Dovecot Mailing List
{
:0
- !^Subject:.*\[Dovecot\] { :0 fhw * ^Subject:\/.* | formail -I "Subject: [Dovecot] $MATCH" } }
I don't know enough about Sieve to give an example.. what you want is:
- List-Id head contains "Dovecot Mailing List"
- Subject does not contain [Dovecot]
- Pass email to formail to modify Subject ( built in Sieve equivalent?)
HTH
Rick
On 4-Mar-10, at 4:36 PM, Rick Romero wrote:
Quoting "Marcus Rueckert" darix@opensu.se:
On 2010-03-04 15:27:20 -0600, Rick Romero wrote:
I'm by no means a procmail expert, but this seems to work (though [Dovecot] gets put before the Re:)
and with an LDA that speaks only sieve? how do you do it there?
This is better for procmail (doesn't change Subject if [Dovecot]
already there) :0 fhw
- ^List-Id:.*Dovecot Mailing List { :0
- !^Subject:.*\[Dovecot\] { :0 fhw * ^Subject:\/.* | formail -I "Subject: [Dovecot] $MATCH" } }
I don't know enough about Sieve to give an example.. what you want is:
- List-Id head contains "Dovecot Mailing List"
- Subject does not contain [Dovecot]
- Pass email to formail to modify Subject ( built in Sieve
equivalent?)HTH
Rick
So what happen if I had this promail recipe and I reply to list?
If the subject line is "Dovecot Mailing List", will it become "Re:
Dovecot Mailing List" or "Re: [Dovecot] Mailing List"? (I think it's
the latter case)
If it's the latter one, I vote to keep the prefix now.
The prefix helps visual eye filtering, works for people (including me)
who keep all new email to inbox rather than direct them to other
folder before reading them.
I vote to keep the prefix even it's the first scenario, but I'm not
strong into must keep prefix in both cases.
Joseph
Quoting "Joseph Yee" jyee@ca.afilias.info:
On 4-Mar-10, at 4:36 PM, Rick Romero wrote:
Quoting "Marcus Rueckert" darix@opensu.se:
On 2010-03-04 15:27:20 -0600, Rick Romero wrote:
I'm by no means a procmail expert, but this seems to work (though [Dovecot] gets put before the Re:)
and with an LDA that speaks only sieve? how do you do it there?
This is better for procmail (doesn't change Subject if [Dovecot]
already there) :0 fhw
- ^List-Id:.*Dovecot Mailing List { :0
- !^Subject:.*\[Dovecot\] { :0 fhw * ^Subject:\/.* | formail -I "Subject: [Dovecot] $MATCH" } }
I don't know enough about Sieve to give an example.. what you want is:
- List-Id head contains "Dovecot Mailing List"
- Subject does not contain [Dovecot]
- Pass email to formail to modify Subject ( built in Sieve equivalent?)
HTH
Rick
So what happen if I had this promail recipe and I reply to list?
If the subject line is "Dovecot Mailing List", will it become "Re:
Dovecot Mailing List" or "Re: [Dovecot] Mailing List"? (I think
it's the latter case)If it's the latter one, I vote to keep the prefix now.
The prefix helps visual eye filtering, works for people (including
me) who keep all new email to inbox rather than direct them to other
folder before reading them.I vote to keep the prefix even it's the first scenario, but I'm not
strong into must keep prefix in both cases.
The procmail recipe would mark a reply as: [Dovecot] Re: Mailing List
UNLESS you replied to it. Then your MUA would prepend the [Dovecot]
with Re: just like it does now.
So it wouldn't be exactly the same. You'd have to figure out how to
insert text... It's just getting bigger and uglier - though I'm sure
some expert could trim it... also untested...
:0 fhw
- ^List-Id:.*Dovecot Mailing List
{
:0 fhw
- !^Subject:.*\[Dovecot\]
{
:0 fhw
- ^Subject: Re:\/.*
{
:0 fhw
- ^Subject:\/.* | formail -I "Subject: Re: [Dovecot] $MATCH" } :0 fhw
- !^Subject: Re:\/.*
{
:0 fhw
- ^Subject:\/.* | formail -I "Subject: [Dovecot] $MATCH" } } }
- ^Subject: Re:\/.*
{
:0 fhw
- !^Subject:.*\[Dovecot\]
{
:0 fhw
Rick Romero wrote:
Quoting "Marcus Rueckert" darix@opensu.se:
On 2010-03-04 15:27:20 -0600, Rick Romero wrote:
I'm by no means a procmail expert, but this seems to work (though [Dovecot] gets put before the Re:)
and with an LDA that speaks only sieve? how do you do it there?
This is better for procmail (doesn't change Subject if [Dovecot] already there) :0 fhw
- ^List-Id:.*Dovecot Mailing List { :0
- !^Subject:.*\[Dovecot\] { :0 fhw * ^Subject:\/.* | formail -I "Subject: [Dovecot] $MATCH" } }
I don't know enough about Sieve to give an example.. what you want is:
- List-Id head contains "Dovecot Mailing List"
- Subject does not contain [Dovecot]
- Pass email to formail to modify Subject ( built in Sieve equivalent?)
if header :contains "List-Id" "dovecot.dovecot.org" { fileinto "Dovecot"; stop; }
I just removed my Subject based filter and put this in so "+1".
\\||/ Rod
HTH
Rick
I'm by no means a procmail expert, but this seems to work (though [Dovecot] gets put before the Re:)
This is better for procmail (doesn't change Subject if [Dovecot]
already there) :0 fhw
- ^List-Id:.*Dovecot Mailing List { :0
The first one is not a filter, and we don't wanna wait for it either. And all this unnecessary cascading of recipes, to get an AND, which is default with multiple conditions... See, that's why people perceive procmail syntax as hard to understand. ;)
# Force-inject [Dovecot] Subject tagging, just because I insist on the # list traffic hitting my Inbox, and am unwilling to filter it.
:0 fw
- ^List-Id: .*Dovecot Mailing List
- ! ^Subject: .*\[Dovecot\]
- ^Subject: \/.* | formail -I "Subject: [Dovecot] ${MATCH}"
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i
Quoting "Karsten Bräckelmann" guenther@rudersport.de:
I'm by no means a procmail expert, but this seems to work (though [Dovecot] gets put before the Re:)
This is better for procmail (doesn't change Subject if [Dovecot] already there) :0 fhw
- ^List-Id:.*Dovecot Mailing List { :0
The first one is not a filter, and we don't wanna wait for it either. And all this unnecessary cascading of recipes, to get an AND, which is default with multiple conditions... See, that's why people perceive procmail syntax as hard to understand. ;)
# Force-inject [Dovecot] Subject tagging, just because I insist on the # list traffic hitting my Inbox, and am unwilling to filter it.
:0 fw
- ^List-Id: .*Dovecot Mailing List
- ! ^Subject: .*\[Dovecot\]
- ^Subject: \/.*
- ! ^Subject: Re:\/.* | formail -I "Subject: [Dovecot] ${MATCH}"
Added partial Re: adjuster - Use a 2nd recipe for the Subject: Re: [Dovecot] ? THANK YOU! :)
Rick
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 17:46 -0600, Rick Romero wrote:
Quoting "Karsten Bräckelmann" guenther@rudersport.de:
# Force-inject [Dovecot] Subject tagging, just because I insist on the # list traffic hitting my Inbox, and am unwilling to filter it.
:0 fw
- ^List-Id: .*Dovecot Mailing List
- ! ^Subject: .*\[Dovecot\]
- ^Subject: \/.*
- ! ^Subject: Re:\/.*
Corrected quoting, I did not write that last line.
I don't think it does what you intend anyway, unless you want to prevent the Subject tagging, if the Subject begins with a Re: marker. Also, I've never used the \/ match buffer in a negated condition, but my gut feeling is that it will make the original intent fail.
| formail -I "Subject: [Dovecot] ${MATCH}"
Added partial Re: adjuster - Use a 2nd recipe for the Subject: Re: [Dovecot] ? THANK YOU! :)
You're welcome. :)
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i
Quoting "Karsten Bräckelmann" guenther@rudersport.de:
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 17:46 -0600, Rick Romero wrote:
Quoting "Karsten Bräckelmann" guenther@rudersport.de:
# Force-inject [Dovecot] Subject tagging, just because I insist on the # list traffic hitting my Inbox, and am unwilling to filter it.
:0 fw
- ^List-Id: .*Dovecot Mailing List
- ! ^Subject: .*\[Dovecot\]
- ^Subject: \/.*
- ! ^Subject: Re:\/.*
Corrected quoting, I did not write that last line.
I don't think it does what you intend anyway, unless you want to prevent the Subject tagging, if the Subject begins with a Re: marker. Also, I've never used the \/ match buffer in a negated condition, but my gut feeling is that it will make the original intent fail.
Oh, I thought the backslash was escaping the / .. I was just going by
an example I had - even though now that I think about it, that really
makes no sense. \o/
In any case, yes, I want to skip Matching replies, because otherwise
you won't match how the system prepends [Dovecot] now.
For example. Subject: This is a test is replied to and becomes: Subject: Re: This is a test
I would think those of us who prefer to have the prefix would want: Subject: Re: [Dovecot] This is a test and not Subject: [Dovecot] Re: This is a test
Now, If I replied to the second one, it would become
Subject: Re: [Dovecot] Re: This is a test
and that would really hose things up. Of course, were I to do that,
YOUR threading might get all hosed up because all of a Sudden there's
a subject change. Yes, I know there's a header for threading, but I'm
not sure what MUA's respect it.
So I think 2 recipes are required -
- Marks 'original' not prefixed Subjects - prefix is '[Dovecot]'
- Marks replied not prefixed Subjects - prefix is 'Re: [Dovecot]'
So like: :0 fw
- ^List-Id: .*Dovecot Mailing List
- ! ^Subject: .*\[Dovecot\]
- ! ^Subject: Re:.*
- ^Subject: \/.*
:0 fw
- ^List-Id: .*Dovecot Mailing List
- ! ^Subject: .*\[Dovecot\]
- ^Subject: Re:.*
I assume $MATCH would be the last conditional.
I think overall - whether we add or remove the prefix via local
filter, someone is going to have issues with it :)
Rick
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 19:07 -0600, Rick Romero wrote:
Oh, I thought the backslash was escaping the / .. I was just going by
an example I had - even though now that I think about it, that really
makes no sense. \o/ In any case, yes, I want to skip Matching replies, because otherwise
you won't match how the system prepends [Dovecot] now.
The "system" (mailman) prepends the tag, if there is none. Period.
You simply cannot make that work exactly the same on your end. Because it is the mailing list software, that does it currently -- before sending out the mail. Exactly the same for everyone. If *you* will do it, it will break the exact moment someone else does it on his end, too. But does not use the exact same recipe as you do...
Of course, if you happen to send a mail without the tag, but starting Re:, mailman will in fact inject the tag before the Re:...
Subject: Re: This is a test
Re: RE: Re[4]: Re: Fwd: Antw: Re: Real Subject hidden over here
I've seen it all. And even more variants.
I would think those of us who prefer to have the prefix would want: Subject: Re: [Dovecot] This is a test and not Subject: [Dovecot] Re: This is a test
You will get both. The first one is an example replying, after adding the tag. The second is an example in your Inbox *shudder* [1] of someone not adding the stupid tag on his client side end, but you adding it.
Now, If I replied to the second one, it would become Subject: Re: [Dovecot] Re: This is a test
You are free to modify the Subject and get rid of one of those.
You are free to reply to the list, and not Cc me personally. I do read the list, you know...
and that would really hose things up. Of course, were I to do that,
YOUR threading might get all hosed up because all of a Sudden there's
a subject change. Yes, I know there's a header for threading, but I'm
not sure what MUA's respect it.
ANY even half-decent MUA does respect these headers. References and In-Reply-To. My threading will not be messed up, even if you change the Subject entirely.
Of course, my threading is being messed up by someone actually replying, but not realizing that deleting the entire body and subject will not generate a "fresh" message, but still is a reply -- but this is an entirely unrelated story. ;)
So I think 2 recipes are required -
- Marks 'original' not prefixed Subjects - prefix is '[Dovecot]'
- Marks replied not prefixed Subjects - prefix is 'Re: [Dovecot]'
IMHO, none is required. This whole concept of Subject tagging is utterly broken and useless. There are headers for that your MDA or MUA can use for filtering, sorting or any other kind of logic the user requires, just because he doesn't filter into dedicated folders.
I assume $MATCH would be the last conditional.
Now you lost me. $MATCH is the content you previously captured with the \/ start matching here. It is not a condition.
I think overall - whether we add or remove the prefix via local
filter, someone is going to have issues with it :)
True. There's always someone who will complain.
[1] Yes, I am strictly against keeping ML bulk in your Inbox, just because your retarded MUA (which hardly is worth that name) on your phone can't handle folders. This is an IMAP server list. Do filter server side. No excuse.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i
"Rick Romero" rick@havokmon.com writes:
Yeah.. procmail filter to modify the subject would satisfy me.
I'm by no means a procmail expert, but this seems to work (though [Dovecot] gets put before the Re:)
:0 fhw
- ^List-Id:.*Dovecot Mailing List { :0 fhw
- ^Subject:\/.* | formail -I "Subject: [dovecot] $MATCH" }
I realise this is a late response on this thread and is probably overly pedantic but RFC 2919 (List-Id) is clear about which bit of the List-ID: header is actually the list-id. It's the bit in angle brackets:
The List-Id header MAY optionally include a description by including it as a "phrase" [DRUMS] before the angle-bracketed list identifier. [...] For many MUAs the parsing of the List-Id header will simply consist of extracting the list identifier from between the delimiting angle brackets.
The syntax of the List-Id header follows:
list-id-header = "List-ID:" [phrase] "<" list-id ">" CRLF
So if you are going to do List-ID filtering I suggest doing it on the bit in angle brackets not the phrase part as has been done in the procmail recipe above. Thus in procmail:
:0 fhw
- ^List-Id:.*
and in sieve:
if header :contains "list-id" "
Quoting Timo Sirainen tss@iki.fi:
Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it? It seems kind of annoying to me whenever I happen to think about it.
List-Id has been mentioned as the replacement mechanism by some, but
the main issue is that it is not immediately viewable (at least with
any rationally configured MUA) to the user. Obviously, filtering by
List-Id is the preferred method, since it has the canonical mailing
list definition. However, List-Id filtering does not work in all
situations.
For example, a common situation (at least for me) is someone who
replies directly to your message from a list instead of to the list
address. This will most likely cause that message to end up in your
INBOX rather than being filtered into the appropriate mailing list
mailbox. Having the list name in the Subject can be useful to
visually filter these incoming messages in your INBOX, rather than
potentially deleting/marking as spam since often times you may not
recognize the sender.
FWIW, use of brackets in this manner is sort of a pseudo-standard,
insomuch as it is an acceptable component of Subject lines with
respect to threading/sorting pursuant to RFC 5256.
michael
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 22:59:59 +0200 Timo Sirainen tss@iki.fi articulated:
Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it? It seems kind of annoying to me whenever I happen to think about it.
Personally, I filter on the List-Id, so it doesn't make any difference to me. I guess losing the prefix might be a good idea though.
-- Jerry gesbbb@yahoo.com
|::::======= |::::======= |=========== |=========== |
Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all.
Thomas J. KoppOn 2010-03-04 22:59:59 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it? It seems kind of annoying to me whenever I happen to think about it.
personally i like the prefixes. especially to sort off list replies when looking through the inbox.
so -1 from me on removing.
darix-- openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux openSUSE is good for you www.opensuse.org
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 22:43 +0100, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
On 2010-03-04 22:59:59 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it? It seems kind of annoying to me whenever I happen to think about it.
personally i like the prefixes. especially to sort off list replies when looking through the inbox.
so -1 from me on removing.
darix
-1 for me too, best to keep things the way they are Timo, basically all lists i'm on use tags and I think its good practise to keep. of the myriad of lists im' on and have been on for many many years, only nanog and bind lists dont use tags. lastly, as they say, if it aint borked, dont fux it :)
On 3/5/2010 1:17 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
of the myriad of lists im' on and have been on for many many years, only nanog and bind lists dont use tags.
postfix doesn't, and I know you're on there (you replied to the 'copy-to-sent' thread with some helpful hints)... ;)
--
Best regards,
Charles
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 03:57 -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 3/5/2010 1:17 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
of the myriad of lists im' on and have been on for many many years, only nanog and bind lists dont use tags.
postfix doesn't, and I know you're on there (you replied to the 'copy-to-sent' thread with some helpful hints)... ;)
I have not been on the postfix list in some time, and i was only on it for a short period of time for my inquiry which went unanswered.
On 2010-03-05 5:28 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 03:57 -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 3/5/2010 1:17 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
of the myriad of lists im' on and have been on for many many years, only nanog and bind lists dont use tags.
postfix doesn't, and I know you're on there (you replied to the 'copy-to-sent' thread with some helpful hints)... ;)
I have not been on the postfix list in some time, and i was only on it for a short period of time for my inquiry which went unanswered.
Oops, my bad, confused you with Noel Jones... apologies...
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 05:57 -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2010-03-05 5:28 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 03:57 -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 3/5/2010 1:17 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
of the myriad of lists im' on and have been on for many many years, only nanog and bind lists dont use tags.
postfix doesn't, and I know you're on there (you replied to the 'copy-to-sent' thread with some helpful hints)... ;)
I have not been on the postfix list in some time, and i was only on it for a short period of time for my inquiry which went unanswered.
Oops, my bad, confused you with Noel Jones... apologies...
hehe no problems.. i knew a Noel Jones once.... but i doubt its the same guy i went to school with :) wrong country and all...
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 22:59:59 +0200 Timo Sirainen wrote:
Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it? It seems kind of annoying to me whenever I happen to think about it.
Removal gives 10 chars more for the subject. Remove it.
--Frank Elsner
Frank Elsner put forth on 3/4/2010 3:51 PM:
Removal gives 10 chars more for the subject. Remove it.
And what ever will people do with those extra 10 characters. I've got 1744 messages in my Dovecot folder and not one has a subject line too long to fit in my MUA.
I say ban all the people wasting the list's time with this absolutely stupid, irrelevant subject. ;)
-- Stan
On 03/04/2010 03:59 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it? It seems kind of annoying to me whenever I happen to think about it.
I vote to keep it.
Although I filter on List-Id, occasionally my filters break and I end up receiving a bunch of list messages in my INBOX. When this happens, the first thing I do after fixing my filters is search for mailing list tags in subjects (because practically every mail client on earth supports doing so) and move those messages into the right place.
One of the features I miss from claws-mail, now that I'm using Thunderbird again, is the ability to remove text matching an arbitrary regexp from all messages in a folder. I used to remove the [Dovecot] prefix using this, but since it was only hidden from view I still had the benefit of being able to search for it.
-- Ben Winslow rain@bluecherry.net
On 2010-03-04 4:55 PM, Ben Winslow wrote:
Although I filter on List-Id, occasionally my filters break and I end up receiving a bunch of list messages in my INBOX. When this happens, the first thing I do after fixing my filters is search for mailing list tags in subjects (because practically every mail client on earth supports doing so) and move those messages into the right place.
Why do that manually? Just re-run the filter on the Inbox...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:59:59PM +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it? It seems kind of annoying to me whenever I happen to think about it.
-1 on removal.
I use mutt and I do not presort into folders; however I do
have macros to limit display to various lists I am on so I can
go through messages and threads as I have time to do so.
Removal of the prefix would be truly annoying.
John-- The price we pay for money is paid in liberty.
-- Robert Louis Stevenson (1850-1894), novelist, essayist, and poet
On 2010-03-04 5:24 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
I use mutt and I do not presort into folders; however I do have macros to limit display to various lists I am on so I can go through messages and threads as I have time to do so.
So change the macros to filter based on list-id rather than something in the subject...
Better than insisting the rest of us suffer... ;)
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 04.03.10 21:59, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it?
I'd strongly prefer you removing the prefix. One can assume that most list members use a Dovecot server backend. Simply add a sieve rule to filter by the List-Id header, and you're done.
-R
On 4.3.2010, at 22.59, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it? It seems kind of annoying to me whenever I happen to think about it.
Well, it's beginning to sound like there are non-filtering reasons why the prefix can be good. So I guess it's better to keep things the way they are now :)
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 00:45 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 4.3.2010, at 22.59, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it? It seems kind of annoying to me whenever I happen to think about it.
Well, it's beginning to sound like there are non-filtering reasons why the prefix can be good. So I guess it's better to keep things the way they are now :)
I don't recall any, other than plain refusal to use a dedicated folder, rather than dumping it all into the Inbox...
Anyway, here's a procmail recipe to *remove* the unnecessary Subject tagging. Enjoy!
:0
^List-Post: mailto:dovecot@dovecot.org { :0 fw | sed "1,/^$/ { /^Subject:/ s/\[Dovecot\] // }"
:0 : DELIVERY_LOCATION_GOES_HERE }
Caveat: Copy-n-paste, modified from a more complex recipe handling multiple lists. Not tested. Use on your own risk. ;)
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 2010-03-05 07:49, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 00:45 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 4.3.2010, at 22.59, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it? It seems kind of annoying to me whenever I happen to think about it.
Well, it's beginning to sound like there are non-filtering reasons why the prefix can be good. So I guess it's better to keep things the way they are now :)
I don't recall any, other than plain refusal to use a dedicated folder, rather than dumping it all into the Inbox...
IMO, Michael M. Slusarz had a valid reason:
"[...] a common situation (at least for me) is someone who replies directly to your message from a list instead of to the list address. This will most likely cause that message to end up in your INBOX rather than being filtered into the appropriate mailing list mailbox. Having the list name in the Subject can be useful to visually filter these incoming messages in your INBOX, rather than potentially deleting/marking as spam since often times you may not recognize the sender."
I'm ok with both ways, but given that there is a considerable amount of opposition, I think Timo's decision to keep it as it is will work best.
Patrick.
STAR Software (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. http://www.star-group.net/ Phone: +86 (21) 3462 7688 x 826 Fax: +86 (21) 3462 7779
PGP key E883A005 https://stshacom1.star-china.net/keys/patrick_nagel.asc Fingerprint: E09A D65E 855F B334 E5C3 5386 EF23 20FC E883 A005 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkuQnlIACgkQ7yMg/OiDoAXXZwCffZWVAYq4sYp8LIaCsaOtL/Bc /n8AniFyZx68KfWAgrdUGGST/97UGsW3 =pG8R -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 14:01 +0800, Patrick Nagel wrote:
On 2010-03-05 07:49, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
I don't recall any, other than plain refusal to use a dedicated folder, rather than dumping it all into the Inbox...
IMO, Michael M. Slusarz had a valid reason:
Frankly, I disagree. I do receive legit private messages, forked off of an on-list thread. From various mailing-lists. I would not want them to be filtered into a dedicated list folder. For that reason, Subject based filtering is wrong, and the proper mailing-list headers do a perfect job here.
"[...] a common situation (at least for me) is someone who replies directly to your message from a list instead of to the list address. This will most likely cause that message to end up in your INBOX rather than being filtered into the appropriate mailing list mailbox. Having
It is an off-list reply. It doesn't belong in the list folder.
I'm ok with both ways, but given that there is a considerable amount of opposition, I think Timo's decision to keep it as it is will work best.
Well, I'd prefer to drop the Subject tagging. But this decision isn't my call on this list. :)
If it bugs me enough, I can always drop it locally. The procmail recipe to accomplish that was the important point of my previous post. I didn't argue about the tagging itself.
guenther
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi Karsten / Guenther,
On 2010-03-06 01:18, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 14:01 +0800, Patrick Nagel wrote:
On 2010-03-05 07:49, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
I don't recall any, other than plain refusal to use a dedicated folder, rather than dumping it all into the Inbox...
IMO, Michael M. Slusarz had a valid reason:
Frankly, I disagree. I do receive legit private messages, forked off of an on-list thread. From various mailing-lists. I would not want them to be filtered into a dedicated list folder. For that reason, Subject based filtering is wrong, and the proper mailing-list headers do a perfect job here.
"[...] a common situation (at least for me) is someone who replies directly to your message from a list instead of to the list address. This will most likely cause that message to end up in your INBOX rather than being filtered into the appropriate mailing list mailbox. Having
It is an off-list reply. It doesn't belong in the list folder.
I think you misunderstood Michael: he doesn't see a problem in those messages ending up in the Inbox. He (just as myself) likes to see them stick out *visually* from other stuff in the Inbox, as being [$list]-related, so that he won't delete them because he doesn't know the sender.
Patrick.
STAR Software (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. http://www.star-group.net/ Phone: +86 (21) 3462 7688 x 826 Fax: +86 (21) 3462 7779
PGP key E883A005 https://stshacom1.star-china.net/keys/patrick_nagel.asc Fingerprint: E09A D65E 855F B334 E5C3 5386 EF23 20FC E883 A005 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkuUWdUACgkQ7yMg/OiDoAWbdgCcCP8f2cawUrz9L5mTQDzADZ52 9sYAoJdE09Ee+K0uvm2PpsEMDO7yBLx3 =rJF8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:45:45AM +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 4.3.2010, at 22.59, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it? It seems kind of annoying to me whenever I happen to think about it.
Well, it's beginning to sound like there are non-filtering reasons why the prefix can be good. So I guess it's better to keep things the way they are now :)
Hrm. I guess I'm too late for the voting, then. I use tagged addresses (envelope recipient) to control routing into folders. I would like to see the prefix go away.
(I know it doesn't look like it, because I use this same address as posting address on numerous mailing lists. But I generally set it NOMAIL after subscribing, and I read through a different address.)
Offlist mail to this address is discarded unless
"/dev/rob0" or "not-spam" is in Subject: header- Timo Sirainen tss@iki.fi:
Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it? It seems kind of annoying to me whenever I happen to think about it.
-1
I don't need any [tag] for filtering, that's what plus'd addresses or List-Id headers are for. My _brain_ relies on a [tag], especially if I want to continue an interesting discussion, which has a poor Subject:, off list/in private. 99,9% of the few spams I receive are in English, so I'm pretty fast when it comes to deleting English messages with non-obvious Subject: headers. The [tag] helps a lot with that.
Stefan
On 04/03/2010 20:59, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it? It seems kind of annoying to me whenever I happen to think about it.
Doesn't bother me, but I have a feeling that at least some of the older M$ email clients cannot easily filter messages based on header fields, subject filters are the simplest options for them.
Certainly I would say that it's currently still the status quo that mailing lists have subject prefixes, so you are slightly going against the flow. You could test the backlash by sending out a small number of warning messages without the subject prefix and see who complains...
I would suggest it might be an over-bold move given that it changes the requirement to understand your filtering LDA from beginner to intermediate, but personally not fussed since my rules all filter on list headers... (Presumably all those who rate "black belt" on their relevant LDA have already got filtering rules to remove the prefix...)
Good luck
Ed W
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 09:50 +0000, Ed W wrote:
I would suggest it might be an over-bold move given that it changes the requirement to understand your filtering LDA from beginner to intermediate, [...]
This is an IMAP *server* list. It should be fairly safe to assume mail admins exceeded the beginner level for their tools...
Should. Reality on a lot of related lists eloquently shows, this is not the case. :/
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i
Timo Sirainen tss@iki.fi wrote:
Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it? It seems kind of annoying to me whenever I happen to think about it.
You can filter it out "for yourself", can not you? ;-)
I would suggest to keep it "as it is" even if it is "annoying you a little" :-)
-- [pl>en: Andrew] Andrzej Adam Filip : anfi@onet.eu It's not easy, being green. -- Kermit the Frog
Quoting Timo Sirainen tss@iki.fi:
Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it? It seems kind of annoying to me whenever I happen to think about it.
I personally like it, and would miss it, but it wouldn't break anything for me...
I like to be able to just look at the subject listing and see what's what... If you're on a lot of lists, this is most useful...
Any computer sorting/filtering I do is on non-subject headers... The subject prefix is purely for my own brain's sorting/filtering...
-- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin
Go Longhorns!
Eric Rostetter wrote:
Quoting Timo Sirainen tss@iki.fi:
Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it? It seems kind of annoying to me whenever I happen to think about it. It wouldn't break any of my filters.
Personally, I like it when a mailing list uses the [LISTNAME] prefix. I get thousands of messages per day and a bunch of list messages, and even after filtering, having that type of prefix makes it visually easier for me to get a handle on what's important and what is not. When such a prefix is missing, the message subjects when there are many messages are actually more difficult to visually process, for me, even when all of the messages within a directory are from the same list.
My 2 cents.
James Butler IT Director United Defense Group, LLP
If prefix is not prefer by some, but many others still want to see the tag in subject line, what about suffix? Can it be done?
just a thought Joseph
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:22 PM, James Butler jbutler@uniteddefensegroup.com wrote:
Eric Rostetter wrote:
Quoting Timo Sirainen tss@iki.fi:
Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it? It seems kind of annoying to me whenever I happen to think about it.
It wouldn't break any of my filters.
Personally, I like it when a mailing list uses the [LISTNAME] prefix. I get thousands of messages per day and a bunch of list messages, and even after filtering, having that type of prefix makes it visually easier for me to get a handle on what's important and what is not. When such a prefix is missing, the message subjects when there are many messages are actually more difficult to visually process, for me, even when all of the messages within a directory are from the same list.
My 2 cents.
James Butler IT Director United Defense Group, LLP
Timo Sirainen tss@iki.fi:
Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it? It seems kind of annoying to me whenever I happen to think about it.
FWIW I read the lit in prefix-stripped form, via NNTP to news.gmane.org, so I never see them.
On the mailing lists I still subscribe to, procmail strips the annoying tags.
But when I see tags they are an annoyance.
participants (31)
-
/dev/rob0
-
Andrzej Adam Filip
-
Ashley M. Kirchner
-
B. Johannessen
-
Ben Winslow
-
Braden McDaniel
-
Charles Marcus
-
Charles Sprickman
-
Ed W
-
Eric Rostetter
-
Frank Cusack
-
Frank Elsner
-
Harlan Stenn
-
James Butler
-
Jerry
-
John R. Dennison
-
Joseph Yee
-
Joseph Yee
-
Karsten Bräckelmann
-
Marcus Rueckert
-
Michael M. Slusarz
-
Noel Butler
-
Patrick Nagel
-
pod
-
Ralph Seichter
-
Rick Romero
-
Roderick A. Anderson
-
Stan Hoeppner
-
Stefan Foerster
-
Steinar Bang
-
Timo Sirainen