CentOS - Nov 2005 - [OT] Message-ID Threading w/Subject Append Example -- WAS: pine rpm for centos 4

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 11:29:00 -0500 (EST), Joshua Baker-LePain 
<jlb17 at duke.edu> wrote:  
> I'm sorry, but making decisions based on Stupid User Tricks is about
> the worst policy I can imagine.  That way lies madness.
No, where lies madness is in the self-centred way in which some 
people make demands of others to alter innocuous behaviour so that 
the data requirements of some MUA or other, that may or may not 
support generally accepted conventions , that may or may not be 
suitably configured, might be satisfied.

I read mailing lists as digests.  Message threading is of no use to 
me outside of threaded web archives, that I seldom use in such 
fashion.  Neither is the subject content of much significance 
beyond keying me as to whether some section of a digest may be of 
particular interest.  This is not to say that these features have 
no value, only that my circumstances realize little any from them.  
However, I have been taken to task nonetheless, because my personal 
preferences do not meet with the approval of some.  It is this 
presumption that irritates me.  

I am not a member of this list simply to ease the administrative 
burdens that some people create for themselves.  I seek information 
and informed opinion on technical issues related to the equipment I 
am responsible for and the vocation I profess, not quasi-religious 
debates on the morality of certain widely held but hardly universal 
conventions.  I sometimes (rarely) am in the possession of a piece 
of information that may prove helpful to another, and so I offer on 
occasion. However, in the main this list is my way of reaching 
beyond my own ignorance.  Usually I am in the position of 
supplicant and I have found the people on this list generally as 
helpful and usually as well informed as other lists that I 
frequent.

But I am concerned about the general tenor of some of the 
discussions here and how these may lead to ill-feeling in some and 
a disinclination to actively participate in others.  We are all 
infinitely ignorant, it is just that some of us possess a 
predisposition to stay within that which we find familiar and 
others find it easier to take adventures. 

Neither tendency is good or bad, they are just personal 
preferences.  It would be more comfortable for the list membership, 
and improve the decorum of the messages considerably, if people 
from one camp or the other, and the many of us that straddle both 
albeit on different issues, displayed a willingness to accommodate 
the other side and recognize that there are many important reasons, 
not all of which we may agree with, why someone chooses to do 
things a certain way. 

Complaining about people's email habits, particularly in public, 
where the content is not the issue strikes me as pointless, self-
indulgent in the extreme, and reflects most poorly on the 
personality of the complainant.

Sincerely,
Jim


--   
     *** e-mail is not a secure channel ***
mailto:byrnejb.<token>@harte-lyne.ca
James B. Byrne                Harte & Lyne Limited
vox: +1 905 561 1241          9 Brockley Drive
fax: +1 905 561 0757          Hamilton, Ontario
<token> = hal                 Canada L8E 3C3

On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 10:16 -0500, James B. Byrne wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 11:29:00 -0500 (EST), Joshua Baker-LePain 
> <jlb17 at duke.edu> wrote:  
> 
> > I'm sorry, but making decisions based on Stupid User Tricks is
about
> > the worst policy I can imagine.  That way lies madness.
> 
> No, where lies madness is in the self-centred way in which some 
> people make demands of others to alter innocuous behaviour so that 
> the data requirements of some MUA or other, that may or may not 
> support generally accepted conventions , that may or may not be 
> suitably configured, might be satisfied.
> 
> I read mailing lists as digests.  Message threading is of no use to 
> me outside of threaded web archives, that I seldom use in such 
> fashion.  Neither is the subject content of much significance 
> beyond keying me as to whether some section of a digest may be of 
> particular interest.  This is not to say that these features have 
> no value, only that my circumstances realize little any from them.  
> However, I have been taken to task nonetheless, because my personal 
> preferences do not meet with the approval of some.  It is this 
> presumption that irritates me.  
> 
> I am not a member of this list simply to ease the administrative 
> burdens that some people create for themselves.  I seek information 
> and informed opinion on technical issues related to the equipment I 
> am responsible for and the vocation I profess, not quasi-religious 
> debates on the morality of certain widely held but hardly universal 
> conventions.  I sometimes (rarely) am in the possession of a piece 
> of information that may prove helpful to another, and so I offer on 
> occasion. However, in the main this list is my way of reaching 
> beyond my own ignorance.  Usually I am in the position of 
> supplicant and I have found the people on this list generally as 
> helpful and usually as well informed as other lists that I 
> frequent.
> 
> But I am concerned about the general tenor of some of the 
> discussions here and how these may lead to ill-feeling in some and 
> a disinclination to actively participate in others.  We are all 
> infinitely ignorant, it is just that some of us possess a 
> predisposition to stay within that which we find familiar and 
> others find it easier to take adventures. 
> 
> Neither tendency is good or bad, they are just personal 
> preferences.  It would be more comfortable for the list membership, 
> and improve the decorum of the messages considerably, if people 
> from one camp or the other, and the many of us that straddle both 
> albeit on different issues, displayed a willingness to accommodate 
> the other side and recognize that there are many important reasons, 
> not all of which we may agree with, why someone chooses to do 
> things a certain way. 
> 
> Complaining about people's email habits, particularly in public, 
> where the content is not the issue strikes me as pointless, self-
> indulgent in the extreme, and reflects most poorly on the 
> personality of the complainant.
----
as someone who has attempted to solve problems by searching the
archives, let me assure you that the value of threaded posts/replies
makes this a usable method. When the threads are broken, it becomes
impossible to trace through an issue and it's solution.

Just a thought for your consideration. I'm not going to comment on any
other issues that you raise.

Craig


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

"James B. Byrne" <ByrneJB at Harte-Lyne.ca>
wrote:
> No, where lies madness is in the self-centred way in which
> some people make demands of others to alter innocuous
behaviour
> so that the data requirements of some MUA or other, that
may or
> may not support generally accepted conventions , that may
or
> may not be suitably configured, might be satisfied.
Agreed.  People should be _understanding_ of others.  I find
that 80% of the time when someone complains about someone's
posting format, it is not the posting format they are really
complaining about, but their target in general -- the posting
format is just one thing they want to focus on, in the hope
of getting others to join in.

I'd rather someone just use a two-word phrase and get it out
of their system, than than to make an entire thread about
what everyone can disagree on.  ;->

You will _never_ hear me complain about the posting format of
others.  I don't expect others to do anything I want, but in
return, I expect others to respect the logic behind my
approach.  The only time I even bring anything up is when
someone feels it necessary to rebuke me on my approach.  I've
been using my approach for 16 years, starting with NNTP and,
now in the days of the web, SMTP with web-based archives.  In
fact, for lists that use SMTP-to/from-NNTP gateways,
Message-ID is the _only_ commonality.

Again, it's a subject which a lot of people can just disagree
on and talk about forever.  Not surprisingly, it's the time
when everyone who doesn't like someone else can come out of
the woodwork and having something to disagree with them
about.  Sigh.
> I read mailing lists as digests.
People need to remember that people who are on digests won't
track Message-ID.  Or at least the common way digests are
generated in text format.

Now Mailman _does_ offer MIME encapsulated digests so the
original Message-ID and other headers can be tracked.  But
this format is rather complex for most mail readers.  I've
found it works very well in Evolution, although I've had
mixed results with web-based readers.  Hence why most lists
don't use it.

So before you complain about someone on-list, be considerate
that someone might be on the digests.  A perfect way would be
to ask them _off-list_.  And, in general, keep such things
off-list in general, because it only adds to the noise (much
like I'm doing right now -- yeah, I'm a hypocrite ;-).
> We are all infinitely ignorant,
So true!
> Complaining about people's email habits, particularly in
> public, where the content is not the issue strikes me as
> pointless, self-indulgent in the extreme, and reflects most
> poorly on the personality of the complainant.
But it's how some people can find "common ground" to complain
about someone they don't like, so they indulge a bit too much
instead of actually focusing on what they really don't like
about the other person.

And, frankly, GMail has given a lot of people a whole new
avenue.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith                | Sent from Yahoo Mail
mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org     |  (please excuse any
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ |   missing headers)