On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 15:03:24 -0400,
  Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > 
> > I do, but it is a lot of email and if I miss a few days it takes a while to
> > catch up again. At some point I will probably do some smarter filtering, but
> > I don't want to spend the effort to figure that out right now.
> I was at some point doing the "smarter filtering", i.e. each list to its
> own folder, but eventually found out that it's better to combine the
> whole thing, which is what I do now.  I also managed to figure out that
> it's better to put stuff that doesn't pass through the list, but has a
> Cc: some-list header, in the same folder; that way, duplicates (of which
> I do get a few) are easier to handle.  (You can choose to remove dupes
> by telling Majordomo not to send you mails that have you on Cc:, but
> I've found that I lose some people's emails due to my own spam
> filtering.)  I have on my TODO to have procmail throw away an email that
> it already delivered (e.g. by comparing Message-Id's), so if someone has
> a solution to that I'd like to know.

I don't have cc's removed because that still sometimes gets me faster replies,
but I do have get only one message when a message is posted to several lists
I use mutt to read mail and maildrop to do filtering.
I think for me smarter filtering would be to split the lists into to or three
groups. There are lists I see a fair number of interesting messages on, lists
I can often answer questions on, and other postgres lists. When I fall behind,
doing a D.* on the other postgres lists is something I should do more than
I currently am.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to