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 at 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.
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. :) -- W | It's not a bug - it's an undocumented feature. +-------------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley M. Kirchner <mailto:ashley at 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.
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. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20100304/88c1078d/attachment-0002.bin>
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 at endoframe.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
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 youor remove them. -frank
Quoting Timo Sirainen <tss at 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 at 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 at yahoo.com |::::======|::::======|==========|==========| Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all. Thomas J. Kopp -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20100304/1a823882/attachment-0002.bin>
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 -- openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux openSUSE is good for you www.opensuse.org
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
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 at bluecherry.net>
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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20100304/d32034e5/attachment-0002.bin>
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 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
* Timo Sirainen <tss at 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
Timo Sirainen <tss at 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 at onet.eu It's not easy, being green. -- Kermit the Frog
Quoting Timo Sirainen <tss at 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!
>>>>> Timo Sirainen <tss at 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.