Not to pile on but if you'd like a google mail account for list purposes, that's always an option. It has a very nice way of allowing you to tag messages and file them accordingly. You can also use pop if you want to consolidate with your other mail boxes. Procmail is also a handy option..
-Chris On 6/9/07, Mike Schinkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Malcolm Tredinnick wrote; > > > > Outlook has had rule-based sorting into other mailboxes > > for a while, > > > > so I would have thought it was possible to use that. > > > > > > It does have that. And I tried that for a while, but found it to be > > > "out-of-sight, out-of-mind." It's worse than just going to > > the group > > > page and searching when I need something. > > > > So rather than you changing your usage patterns slightly, you > > want us to change the list appearance for over 5000 other people. > > 1.) How many people will be negatively affected? Would there really be > anybody? > 2.) Did you not read that I've tried to changing your usage patterns > slightly, and nothing works? > > > > > Cryptic prefixes don't seem very usable for the masses. I > > realise it > > > > sounds harsh, but degrading the situation for a lot of users just > > > > because of flaws in one particular email client isn't > > particularly > > > > fair. > > Is initial usability important? It seems it would only be important to > the > new users and after they are no longer new it is no longer important to > them. Or are you arguing for aethetics? > > Either way, your position offers no compromise. > > > > I don't be to be contrary or confrontational, but in what > > > context is it unusable? > > > > What does [du] mean when you're looking at multiple mailing lists? > > There's absolutely zero context there. > > How many people look at multiple lists they have not subscribed to? If > they've subscribed they'll soon learn what [du] means. I don't see how > that > argument against is valid. > > > It's not making things clearer. > > I wasn't proposing it to improve clarity. I was proposing a way to empower > agents to work better. It clarity really all that important once people > have come to know that [du] = django users? > > > > I would think it would be confusing for a person the > > first time they > > > subscribed after which they'd learn what it means and go > > about their > > > business. Heck, what about [django] then? That's usable. > > > > So we do that on this list and then somebody on another > > django-related list all want the same thing and suddenly > > [django] doesn't look very unique. There's a slippery slope > > argument there. > > Your argument is specious. You are assuming that others will do that, > which > is unlikey for moderators of other Djano user would likely have the sense > to > denote theirs differently. However, I agree the the Deleware Usageaster > society might choose for their mailing list to also use [du], but then the > people that overlaps can just fallback to what you currently require > everyone on this list to do. > > > > And I wouldn't be asking for something "just for me" if it wasn't > > > standard practice on most lists. > > > > Where "most" means "some". It sounds like this is common on > > the lists you subscribe to. It happens to be uncommon > > (slightly less than 40% by a count I just did) on high-volume > > lists I'm subscribed to. > > Clearly we have different samples. Curious, how many of those lists have > you involved in keeping the list designator out of the subject? > > > I have some sympathy for people wanting > > the title in the subject line, but since it can be worked > > around, > > You are correct. I can unsubscribe. Looks like I may be force to do so > even though I'd prefer otherwise. > > > I don't view it as compulsory (and my preference is > > not to have it for reasons mentioned elsewhere, so I'm > > personally happy with the current state of affairs). > > Which makes you not a very appropriate voice for those who are unhappy > with > it then, would you not agree? :) > > > > > If Outlook cannot do what you want and the current situation is > > > > intolerable, you can switch your configuration (at the > > Google groups > > > > page for this group) to daily digest mode (one email per day). Or > > > > you can read and reply to the group through the web interface. > > > > > > <Sigh> Digest isn't usable either and neither is reading > > or replying > > > to the web interface. It's sad that you guys are so > > against what is > > > standard practice on almost every other list. > > > > No, it's not standard practice on "almost every other list". > > Fine. You made your point, I won't argue it. Maybe it just seems to me > that > almost every other list uses it because I've found those that don't so > unmanagable that I've had to unsubscribe from them all. > > > As I said in the first post, opinions > > differ as to the utility of this option. Mail clients have > > been able to handle header filtering for years.. > > Even though the user interface for doing so sucks rotten eggs! > > > The django-* list creators made a decision and were > > aware that whilst it may require some small changes in habits > > for some people, it's hardly a unique decision. > > If we made the opposite decision, it would require changes > > for other people. > > What changes, may I ask? Providing a subject id provides capabilities to > one segment that are otherwise not available. How does providing it harm > you? > > > Realise that some threads end up nesting > > _very_ deeply (a couple of dozen replies to replies > > sometimes), so having some space to allow the indentation for > > threading display removes some of the real-estate for subject > > viewing (your original message for example, since you replied > > to an existing message rather than starting a new thread, is > > nested half a dozen messages into the thread). > > Modern mail clients will let you strip out those unneccesary "RE:" (just > using your argument against you) and suggesting to users they clean cruft > from subject lines can help in any case. > > Besides, a "~" wouldn't make much difference. :) > > > > I'll probably just have to unsubscribe and learn > > TurboGears instead. > > > > If you want to do that, we can only wish you the best and > > hope you reconsider in the future. > > > > > BTW, as I'm new to this list, should I take this attitude as a > > > foreshadowing? > > > > Foreshadowing of what? That requests are listened to and > > answered with reasoning to back them up, rather than just a > > brush-off? Absolutely. > > That we welcome new contributions and take the time to > > respond? Yes. :-) > > > > Look back over the thread and consider what has happened. You > > didn't get the answer you originally sought, but that's going > > to happen now and again. However, your original post was > > answered quickly by two people -- one gave you reasonsing, > > the other pointed to archived discussions that showed where > > we had considered this before and why it wasn't adopted; that > > shows this wasn't an ill-consider or spontaneous decision. In > > follow-ups I then answered your reply with some research on > > my own end to ensure I wasn't blowing smoke about what I > > remembered about Outlook (having not used Windows for 10 > > years, it was second-hand information) and posted a couple of > > alternatives that would work as a compromise. > > The point is that I've heard (second hand) that the Django is hostile to > resolving issues that a segment of Django users have. I was hoping that > not > to be the case and that I would find otherwise because I really don't like > the fan boys of the RoR contigent. Of coruse I can't say the response to > this concern is direct evidence, but my presentation of a problem that I > have being answered with a "No, you need to change" without appreciating > that I might have valid concerns doesn't give me hopes that the criticsm > I've heard was wrong. > > > I've further addressed your points in this email. You'll find > > that sort of response thoroughness fairly typical for the > > list -- have a look at the replies to some of the substantive > > technical questions. I'm now dropping out of the thread, > > because you seem to have decided that you don't want to > > change anything on your end and there isn't really any new > > ground I can think to suggest. > > It's not that I don't want to change anything on my end; you've planted > that > assertion and I want to correct it. It is that I've tried numerous > solutions and, given my current situation, I can't find any other solution > that works. > > I'm curious how many people of the 5000+ would prefer no ID in > subject? Is > it a majority, or just a very vocal minority? > > -- > -Mike Schinkel > http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/ > http://www.welldesignedurls.org > http://atlanta-web.org - http://t.oolicio.us > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
