Also, for all the Outlook Express users (The only one I use) to quickly rid yourself of messages that are of no interest to you- have the hideous message highlighted- click on "subject" at the top, that will group them all together- click on the first one, then while holding down the shift key, click on the last one, they will all become highlighted- press the delete key. "I" then click on "received" at the top to get them back in chronological order. Fast and easy. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California ----- Original Message ----- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 5:28 AM Subject: Re: Technical question about the list
> (Gee, I get too busy to read the list for a few days and folks > start talking about two cameras I really love -- the KX and > the H3...) > > Levente -Levi- Littvay suggested: > > What does everyone think about adding a [pentax] to the subject > > of each letter so it is easier to filter (both with machine and both by > > eyeballing the mailbox) > > I am opposed to this, but not vehemently so. > > Subject lines get kind of long, and when I'm eyeball-filtering > this list I do so by subject. Sticking "[pentax]" or "[pdml]" > on the front of each subject header means taking away that many > characters from the number displayed in the width of my telnet > window, which would make an existing problem worse for me. > > Filtering through software is already pretty easy -- I'm already > sorting each mailing list I'm on into a separate file so that I > can just concentrate on personal mail when I'm too busy for the > lists. (I've got crude spam filtering in place as well, which > I need to refine.) > > (Also, personally, I find it's still easy to overlook personal > messages in a forest of list mail jumbled into one mailbox, even > if list-prefixes are used on the subject headers. It helps more > when the tags are on the few messages I'm looking for -- i.e. with > a low-traffic mailing list in a high-traffic personal mailbox -- > rather than the other way 'round.) > > So for me there'd be no gain and a small but noticeable downside. > > > As for why my opposition is mild: well it _would_ be a pretty > trivial thing to implement, other folks might be seeing more of > the subject lines than I do and thus have less reason to complain, > and some people probably don't have the means to sort/filter > their email automagically (and thus need the "eyeball filter" help). > But note that a personal reply to a mailing list message will wind > up grouped with the list messages if you sort only on a tag in the > subject line. > > > > > That's the important part of my message -- if all you want is my > opinion, skip the rest. Now comes some info on sorting list > mail for folks who have that capability but haven't explored it > yet. > > Each message arrives with a whole pile o' headers, many of which > your mail reader may not bother to show you (especially if you've > specifically told it not to.) The very first line of a message > (and how to spot the start of a new message in an ASCII mailbox) > begins with "From ". There's another from-header further down > which has a colon on it -- "From: ". The second one will show > the sender of the message. The first one (if your mail filtering > rules allow you to sort on it) will say > > From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Dec 2 04:43:40 2001 > > (with the date changing from message to message, of course). > Other useful headers for sorting PDML messages into their own > folder are: > > Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > and, of course: > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > But watch out for using that last one -- the list address could > show up in the "Cc:" header instead of "To:" (some filtering > programs will combine the two for the purpose of a filtering > rule), if someone uses BCC to send a message to the list then > the list address will not show up in either "To:" or "Cc:". > > Anyhow, if you have the ability to sort your mail, you probably > have the ability to sort out the PDML messages without needing > a list-tag on the subject line. (Yes, I do acknowledge that > some filtering systems are incredibly primitive -- I hope those > are a small minority.) > > > (Wow ... glad this came up, actually. Made me take a look at > my filter rules, which include some for when the list was hosted > elsewhere, and then I looked at my Procmail log file and realized > it was 29M because I'd forgotten to clear it out since April 2000. > Whoops!) > > -- Glenn > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
