Rasmus Lerdorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
L> So, as far as I am concerned, I will continue being a proponent of this
L> feature given that it is implemented correctly and that the tag is nice
L> and short so it doesn't obscure too much of the subject line.
... and that individual users who do not want tags need not opt in (or at
the least can opt out).
BTW, Onelist does not normally repeat tags, but if a list name is long, as
many have to be to avoid name clashes, the tag pushes too much of the real
subject out of view when there is a limited field width. Onelist's list for
mailing list managers is named emaillist-managers; every post's subject is
padded with the twenty-three characters of "[emaillist-managers] " either at
the beginning or after "Re: ".
eGroups has been known to accumulate repeated tags, though. I've received
posts with three tags in the incoming subject line.
When Kenneth E. Bannister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
B> It lets them know that the message is in fact from my list and is not
B> just a personal message from someone.
Keith Flippin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> responded,
F> I find this is often not the case. Particularly when someone replies
F> privately to a public post, almost no one removes the list-tag from the
F> subject line. People who rely exclusively on that tag for determining
F> the origin of mail then often mistakenly assume that the private mail
F> was a public post, and reply publicly. This, IMHO, is the greatest
F> failing of the subject tag system, and I find myself often reminding my
F> users to check their headers and keep private mail private.
I couldn't agree more with that particular comment from Mr. Flippin. It has
happened to me that someone assumed, based on the tag in the subject, that my
private reply was public. I told him that was ridiculous, because the list
where it occurred also clobbers Reply-To:, so when he overrode the return
address and directed his reply to the list instead of me he clearly knew it
had not been a list distribution. He responded that he never uses his mail
client's reply feature but always selects the text if he wants to quote it
and drops it into a freshly addressed message (somehow managing to copy the
subject as well).
F> FWIW, I *always* remove the tag before replying privately, just to avoid
F> that issue;
I have my .procmailrc remove tags on all posts from lists that tag (the only
one I belong to where tagging is optional is the one I run), since they are
of no benefit to me, they annoy me by pushing part of the real subject out of
view on Elm's index screen, and they confuse people to whom I send private
replies. This way I don't have to remove them from the subjects of private
replies.
F> and if it's especially important that it remain private, I state
F> at the top that "This is private e-mail; direct your reply to me and not
F> to the list" or something to that effect.
One should include that whenever one replies privately to a list distribu-
tion, except to a familiar correspondent whom one knows to be familiar with
the ideas, not just when privacy is especially important. It's surprising
how many don't know, or when cornered claim not to know or even deny, that it
is rude and probably illegal to quote private correspondence into a public
forum without the writer's consent.
