Re: Mailing list Subject: line
-- grarpamp grarp...@gmail.com [2013-02-08 22:17:26 -0500]: If at all possible I'd like to see the Subject: line for this list updated from... Subject: ...thread... ...to... Subject: [mutt-users] ...thread... I got this far in your email and had to reply no - please don't do that. Sorry but it's not to everyones taste i'd imagine. I haven't even read other replies yet but i'm pretty sure they will say a similar thing.
Re: Mailing list Subject: line
On 08.02.13 22:29, Will Yardley wrote: On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:17:26PM -0500, grarpamp wrote: If at all possible I'd like to see the Subject: line for this list updated from... Subject: ...thread... ...to... Subject: [mutt-users] ...thread... I'm aware mail filters are readily available to some. I'm suggesting it because the prefixed subject line model is very prevalent these days, particularly with mailman, and would further hazard the suggestion that as such it should be considered a reasonable standard worth implementing. No, it is not considered reasonable here, I think you'll find. Though present on a number of lists, I have encountered the list-name subject line pollution on only one other list. It was soon removed, after community objection. (AFAICT. I implemented a procmail filter to remove the pollution from mails received here, but have read on the list that it is no longer sent.) Given the number of threads on here about getting *rid* of those things, I doubt there will be a lot of enthusiasm for this suggestion on this mailing list. +1 That said, you should check out '$index_format' in the muttrc man page -- if the list is defined properly, you should already see (with the default index format) the mailing list name in your index already, so even if you're not filtering, it should be pretty obvious what mailing list the message was sent to. Beatifully parried, Will. With recipients disinclined to sort their mail able to have their cake and eat it too, there is no longer any pretext on which the one can reasonably impose on the community to make up for personal lack of effort. Erik (Who has 20 incoming mailboxes, and 1138 mailboxes for sorting after reading.) -- One man's constant is another man's variable. - A.J. Perlis
Re: Mailing list Subject: line
Derek Martin wrote: But this philosophy favors the casual list member over the people who read the list regularly. The community should cater to its regular members, not people whose interest and participation are fleeting... So this approach is wrong. The Mutt community, by and large, chooses Mutt because it is a superior tool for many mail processing needs; they also tend to use other powerful tools to further improve and streamline their mail processing needs. This question, and others like it arise on the list from time to time, and on the whole the community rejects the notion of dumbing down list policies (like this one, or like setting reply-to to the list address) for the benefit of those who are ignorant of, or can't be bothered to use better tools. I've been here for nearly 15 years, and the arguments have been pretty consistent for the entirety of that time. +1! Insightfully written. s. keeling wrote: I'm a sysadmin. My job is to make users' wishes happen, as long as they don't hurt others or the overall system. I was a sysadmin for a very long time, and I daresay I was a pretty darn good one... I disagree that your job is to make users' wishes happen. Your job is to help your users to best leverage the technology you manage for them to achieve their goals. Sometimes, part of that job is recognizing that what the user thinks he wants IS WRONG, and pointing out that there are better alternatives. And sometimes, your job IS to get in their way, when getting their way hurts the greater user community. +1 again. I try to only very rarely post me-too types of posts. But I was compelled to say something positive about these very well thought out comments. It is as important to prevent us from moving backward as it is to try to keep moving us forward. Bob signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Mailing list Subject: line
If at all possible I'd like to see the Subject: line for this list updated from... Subject: ...thread... ...to... Subject: [mutt-users] ...thread... I'm aware mail filters are readily available to some. I'm suggesting it because the prefixed subject line model is very prevalent these days, particularly with mailman, and would further hazard the suggestion that as such it should be considered a reasonable standard worth implementing. Partly also to limit the needed customizations and header decipherment work to integrate new lists into people's filters. And to make the mailbox of the 'occaisional' subscriber easier to manage until they unsubscribe. And because some people do not have mail filters, or are trapped in cloud based systems, etc. Thank you for considering this issue.
Re: Mailing list Subject: line
Incoming from grarpamp:
If at all possible I'd like to see the Subject: line for this list
updated from...
Subject: ...thread...
...to...
Subject: [mutt-users] ...thread...
If you can use something like procmail or mailfilter (or imapfilter?
maybe; I'm still researching that), you may be able to do this for
yourself, regardless of what the list does.
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*) :(){ :|: };:
- -
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Mailing list Subject: line
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:17:26PM -0500, grarpamp wrote: If at all possible I'd like to see the Subject: line for this list updated from... Subject: ...thread... ...to... Subject: [mutt-users] ...thread... None for me, thanks. I'm aware mail filters are readily available to some. I'm suggesting it because the prefixed subject line model is very prevalent these days, particularly with mailman, and would further hazard the suggestion that as such it should be considered a reasonable standard worth implementing. Just because it's common doesn't mean it's good. The problem with this is that, no batter how wide your screen is, your mail client has a limited amount of screen real estate to display the subject line, and prepending a bunch of useless garbage on the front of the subject line obscures the important part... the part that you can see, which helps you identify the message. If your messages are cross-posted to multiple lists, the subject line can become completely obscured. There are far better methods of sorting your mail, and at least some of them are available on virtually every platform. Generally they are also completely free. Thus there is absolutely no good reason to rely on reducing the useful information visible in the subject line. Thank you for considering this issue. It's been considered many times in the past. -- Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience. pgpN50xuLuFiz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Mailing list Subject: line
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 09:11:55PM -0700, s. keeling wrote: Incoming from grarpamp: If at all possible I'd like to see the Subject: line for this list updated from... Subject: ...thread... ...to... Subject: [mutt-users] ...thread... If you can use something like procmail or mailfilter (or imapfilter? maybe; I'm still researching that), you may be able to do this for yourself, regardless of what the list does. Yes, you can. But if you're already using one of these programs to filter your mail, there's very little reason to bother to do it. Any of them can filter on the mailing list headers into list-specific folders. -- Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience. pgpR5qw787GVE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Mailing list Subject: line
Few things are 'absolute', trade offs are often involved. Just as I might suggest maildrop over procmail, others might suggest bashing their mail over the server wire, or sieving it, instead of downloading it and filtering it locally. As an occaisional subscriber with filter in hand, I recuse myself.
Re: Mailing list Subject: line
Incoming from Derek Martin:
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 09:11:55PM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
Incoming from grarpamp:
If at all possible I'd like to see the Subject: line for this list
updated from...
Subject: ...thread...
...to...
Subject: [mutt-users] ...thread...
If you can use something like procmail or mailfilter (or imapfilter?
Yes, you can. But if you're already using one of these programs to
filter your mail, there's very little reason to bother to do it. Any
I know that, you know that, yet he apparently wants to do something
else (for whatever reason, unbeknownst to us). I was just telling him
there are ways he can handle the problem by himself without involving
the list. I don't know why he wants to do it; not my problem. I
assume he's got a reason for wanting it and it's not my job to get in
his way.
I'm a sysadmin. My job is to make users' wishes happen, as long as
they don't hurt others or the overall system. He has his own reasons
for wanting it, and if it's possible and easily done, it's not my job
to question him on it. It *is* my job to help show him how it can be
done.
Have fun.
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*) :(){ :|: };:
- -
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Mailing list Subject: line
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:17:26PM -0500, grarpamp wrote: If at all possible I'd like to see the Subject: line for this list updated from... Subject: ...thread... ...to... Subject: [mutt-users] ...thread... I'm aware mail filters are readily available to some. I'm suggesting it because the prefixed subject line model is very prevalent these days, particularly with mailman, and would further hazard the suggestion that as such it should be considered a reasonable standard worth implementing. Given the number of threads on here about getting *rid* of those things, I doubt there will be a lot of enthusiasm for this suggestion on this mailing list. That said, you should check out '$index_format' in the muttrc man page -- if the list is defined properly, you should already see (with the default index format) the mailing list name in your index already, so even if you're not filtering, it should be pretty obvious what mailing list the message was sent to. %L If an address in the To: or Cc: header field matches an address defined by the users subscribe command, this displays To list-name, otherwise the same as %F. w
Re: Mailing list Subject: line
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 11:02:12PM -0700, s. keeling wrote: I don't know why he wants to do it; not my problem. Yes, actually, you do: On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:17:26PM -0500, grarpamp wrote: Partly also to limit the needed customizations and header decipherment work to integrate new lists into people's filters. And to make the mailbox of the 'occaisional' subscriber easier to manage until they unsubscribe. And because some people do not have mail filters, or are trapped in cloud based systems, etc. And if he got his way, it might very well be your problem, if it's the sort of thing that you're inclined to be bothered by. But this philosophy favors the casual list member over the people who read the list regularly. The community should cater to its regular members, not people whose interest and participation are fleeting... So this approach is wrong. The Mutt community, by and large, chooses Mutt because it is a superior tool for many mail processing needs; they also tend to use other powerful tools to further improve and streamline their mail processing needs. This question, and others like it arise on the list from time to time, and on the whole the community rejects the notion of dumbing down list policies (like this one, or like setting reply-to to the list address) for the benefit of those who are ignorant of, or can't be bothered to use better tools. I've been here for nearly 15 years, and the arguments have been pretty consistent for the entirety of that time. I assume he's got a reason for wanting it and it's not my job to get in his way. But in this case if you read his post, he's not asking for a way to make it happen for himself; he's advocating that it be considered a standard worth implementing. Those were his words. [I apologize if my assumption of gender is incorrect.] Using the tools you suggested was rather counter to the reasons he gave for suggesting this. I'm a sysadmin. My job is to make users' wishes happen, as long as they don't hurt others or the overall system. I was a sysadmin for a very long time, and I daresay I was a pretty darn good one... I disagree that your job is to make users' wishes happen. Your job is to help your users to best leverage the technology you manage for them to achieve their goals. Sometimes, part of that job is recognizing that what the user thinks he wants IS WRONG, and pointing out that there are better alternatives. And sometimes, your job IS to get in their way, when getting their way hurts the greater user community. -- Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience. pgpV7V0MmczSn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Mailing list Subject: line
assume he's got a reason for wanting it Maybe I'm lazy [2], or temporarily stuck in a crappy UI, or to make the list friendlier to potential converts from Bill's land of the GUI, or any number of things. I'm a sysadmin. Or maybe I want to give those of us admins [1] who've mastered filtering on headers another excercise in postprocessing, such as stripping out all the other useless junk in subject lines... RE: Re: FWD: re: IMPORTANT PRIVATE _.,-~=*^'`!!! [1] Equating use of mutt with unix admin is not unreasonable ;-) [2] Another fine trait of [1].
Re: Mailing list Subject: line
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 01:48:33AM -0500, grarpamp wrote: [1] Equating use of mutt with unix admin is not unreasonable ;-) Yes it is. Probably far less than half the people who use mutt are sysadmins. They're much more likely to be programmers. [Laziness] [2] Another fine trait of [1]. On that, we agree. -- Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience. pgp16CAKOo6b_.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Mailing list Subject: line
better tools. I've been here for nearly 15 years, and the arguments Or maybe I've been here for over 20 and am forgetting this same wisdom I already learned and am beginning to lose the good fight against the Borg. EOF
Re: Mailing list Subject: line
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:17:26PM -0500, grarpamp wrote: If at all possible I'd like to see the Subject: line for this list updated from... Subject: ...thread... ...to... Subject: [mutt-users] ...thread... Ugh. Please, no. There are much better ways to filter messages. Here's my strategy: http://blog.kitchen.io/archive/2012/11/20/mailing-list-subscriptions/ You seem to be using gmail, so hopefully you'll find my gmail-specific instructions helpful. Note that I have not actually tested the majordomo method, though this very list is where I saw it brought up. My current filtering of the mutt list works, so I didn't see much reason to change it, but if I were to ever do so, I would follow the procedure listed there. Filtering by subject is extremely hairy and prone to false positives (and false negatives). When you have powerful, easy to use filtering available to you to precisely target the messages you want without fear of false positives *or* false negatives, why would you want to use any other process? TL;DR: please don't add [mutt-users] to the list subject :) -Jeremy pgpVy6oOeAW0a.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mailing list subject line tags
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 06:43:17PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: Derek Martin wrote: And stranger still is that the copy of the message that I receive from the mailing list ALWAYS VERIFIES CORRECTLY on my end. Perhaps there is some option or version difference with gpg. Maybe something in your settings is automatically trimming trailing whitespace when verifying signatures. Are you using gpgv1 or v2? What is your pgp_verify_command set to? Replying to myself again. You appear to be using gpg v1.4.5. Version 1.4.8 introduced many changes to default functionality (with the release of RFC-4880). I think that is the reason some people are verifying your signatures and others are not. That seems like a pretty big change for a patch-level version bump... I wouldn't have guessed there could be such a problem. If I add the flag '--rfc2440' gpg reverts to the old behaviour and successfully validates the signatures to your emails with trailing whitespaces. Yeah that must be it. Thanks much! -- Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience. pgps0VV7zVGpp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mailing list subject line tags
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 08:26:39PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: Now, I'm not sure *why* mutt would be doing this. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable will have suggestions. Do you have any strange hooks or non-default gpg settings in your muttrc that would turn off QP? Sorry to reply to myself. Looking at the mutt source, the pgp_strict_enc option seems like a likely culprit for this behavior. Mutt won't QP encode trailing space emails unless this is set. Do you by chance have this option turned off? That looks to be it. Odd though, this part of my muttrc hasn't changed in uh, like 12 years or something (I originally copied it from somewhere, so there's a reason it's there, I just can't remember why). Strange that it's only been an issue in the last one or two. Nice job (assuming this is working now). -- Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience. pgpjNXQYoatxB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mailing list subject line tags
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 02:37:01PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: Sorry to reply to myself. Looking at the mutt source, the pgp_strict_enc option seems like a likely culprit for this behavior. Mutt won't QP encode trailing space emails unless this is set. Do you by chance have this option turned off? That looks to be it. Odd though, this part of my muttrc hasn't changed in uh, like 12 years or something (I originally copied it from somewhere, so there's a reason it's there, I just can't remember why). Strange that it's only been an issue in the last one or two. And stranger still is that the copy of the message that I receive from the mailing list ALWAYS VERIFIES CORRECTLY on my end. -- Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience. pgpD0gomHtpW4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mailing list subject line tags
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 02:42:00PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 02:37:01PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: Sorry to reply to myself. Looking at the mutt source, the pgp_strict_enc option seems like a likely culprit for this behavior. Mutt won't QP encode trailing space emails unless this is set. Do you by chance have this option turned off? That looks to be it. Odd though, this part of my muttrc hasn't changed in uh, like 12 years or something (I originally copied it from somewhere, so there's a reason it's there, I just can't remember why). Strange that it's only been an issue in the last one or two. And stranger still is that the copy of the message that I receive from the mailing list ALWAYS VERIFIES CORRECTLY on my end. Both validate for me. Nice catch, Kevin! -Jeremy pgplPtWRaagJb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mailing list subject line tags
Derek Martin wrote: On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 02:37:01PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: Sorry to reply to myself. Looking at the mutt source, the pgp_strict_enc option seems like a likely culprit for this behavior. Mutt won't QP encode trailing space emails unless this is set. Do you by chance have this option turned off? That looks to be it. Odd though, this part of my muttrc hasn't changed in uh, like 12 years or something (I originally copied it from somewhere, so there's a reason it's there, I just can't remember why). Strange that it's only been an issue in the last one or two. This did seem to be it. The last two emails both verify correctly for me. Perhaps this option did other things 12 years ago, or there were strange compatibility issues at that time. And stranger still is that the copy of the message that I receive from the mailing list ALWAYS VERIFIES CORRECTLY on my end. Perhaps there is some option or version difference with gpg. Maybe something in your settings is automatically trimming trailing whitespace when verifying signatures. Are you using gpgv1 or v2? What is your pgp_verify_command set to? -Kevin signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: mailing list subject line tags
Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: Derek Martin wrote: And stranger still is that the copy of the message that I receive from the mailing list ALWAYS VERIFIES CORRECTLY on my end. Perhaps there is some option or version difference with gpg. Maybe something in your settings is automatically trimming trailing whitespace when verifying signatures. Are you using gpgv1 or v2? What is your pgp_verify_command set to? Replying to myself again. You appear to be using gpg v1.4.5. Version 1.4.8 introduced many changes to default functionality (with the release of RFC-4880). I think that is the reason some people are verifying your signatures and others are not. If I add the flag '--rfc2440' gpg reverts to the old behaviour and successfully validates the signatures to your emails with trailing whitespaces. -Kevin signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: mailing list subject line tags
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 07:45:27PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: Interestingly if I manually strip the whitespace and canonicalize line endings, the signature passes. So somehow you are correctly generating the signature (with trailing whitespace removed), but are sending the email out with the whitespace added back on. Could an intermediate MTA be messing with anything? My guess is not, otherwise signing would be a pointless exercise, but you never know ... -- If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. --- Malcolm X
Re: mailing list subject line tags
/ Jeremy Kitchen wrote on Tue 30.Oct'12 at 15:32:47 -0700 / On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 05:08:55PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: Bizzare. The only factor which is obvious to me as a possible differentiating factor is that the first is quoted printable, and the second is plain text. I'm assuming that the first was QP because there was a line that started with from, whereas the second had none. I can't for the life of me figure out why that would be happening though... I thought it might be because I was not setting my charset (in gnupg options), and using UTF-8 (the default of iso-8859-1 is assumed, according to the docs). for the record, I'm also seeing a failed signature on this post. -Jeremy yes, i'm seeing this behaviour as well.
Re: mailing list subject line tags
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 02:53:30PM -0500, David Champion wrote: * On 28 Oct 2012, Remco Rijnders wrote: others, it was working fine). I was just monkeying around with my GPG options, and I wonder if that's still happening. I think I may have figured it out, but I'd love some confirmation. Specifically, if it's failing for you, I'd like to know. I post from an invalid address, so you could reply on list, or if you think that's bad netiquette you could e-mail me at the dragontoe address associated with my GPG key ID. I think I was one of the persons having this issue with your posts. For what it is worth, the signature to the email I reply to does not validate, but the signature on the message starting this thread did. Same result for me, for each post. Bizzare. The only factor which is obvious to me as a possible differentiating factor is that the first is quoted printable, and the second is plain text. I'm assuming that the first was QP because there was a line that started with from, whereas the second had none. I can't for the life of me figure out why that would be happening though... I thought it might be because I was not setting my charset (in gnupg options), and using UTF-8 (the default of iso-8859-1 is assumed, according to the docs). -- Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience. pgpxHe8phxGnB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mailing list subject line tags
Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: Now, I'm not sure *why* mutt would be doing this. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable will have suggestions. Do you have any strange hooks or non-default gpg settings in your muttrc that would turn off QP? Sorry to reply to myself. Looking at the mutt source, the pgp_strict_enc option seems like a likely culprit for this behavior. Mutt won't QP encode trailing space emails unless this is set. Do you by chance have this option turned off? -Kevin signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: mailing list subject line tags
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 11:48:02AM -0500, Derek wrote in 20121020164802.gb17...@dragontoe.org: On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 01:47:44PM -0500, David Champion wrote: Thanks David! As usual, you are the man! On a side note, not too long ago some mailing list members pointed out that my GPG signature wasn't verifying properly for them (whereas for others, it was working fine). I was just monkeying around with my GPG options, and I wonder if that's still happening. I think I may have figured it out, but I'd love some confirmation. Specifically, if it's failing for you, I'd like to know. I post from an invalid address, so you could reply on list, or if you think that's bad netiquette you could e-mail me at the dragontoe address associated with my GPG key ID. I think I was one of the persons having this issue with your posts. For what it is worth, the signature to the email I reply to does not validate, but the signature on the message starting this thread did. Remca pgpz6tYEnVFDK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mailing list subject line tags
* On 28 Oct 2012, Remco Rijnders wrote: others, it was working fine). I was just monkeying around with my GPG options, and I wonder if that's still happening. I think I may have figured it out, but I'd love some confirmation. Specifically, if it's failing for you, I'd like to know. I post from an invalid address, so you could reply on list, or if you think that's bad netiquette you could e-mail me at the dragontoe address associated with my GPG key ID. I think I was one of the persons having this issue with your posts. For what it is worth, the signature to the email I reply to does not validate, but the signature on the message starting this thread did. Same result for me, for each post. -- David Champion • d...@bikeshed.us
Re: mailing list subject line tags
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 01:47:44PM -0500, David Champion wrote: Recently I've been growing increasingly annoyed (at work mainly, though I've never been a fan generally) with mailing lists which put [mailinglist name] in the subject line. At work we often get threads Me too. Apply replacelist and subjectrx from https://bitbucket.org/dgc/mutt-dgc/src . Sorry, I thought there were docs and examples there, but I was wrong. See http://www.mail-archive.com/mutt-users@mutt.org/msg44387.html Thanks David! As usual, you are the man! On a side note, not too long ago some mailing list members pointed out that my GPG signature wasn't verifying properly for them (whereas for others, it was working fine). I was just monkeying around with my GPG options, and I wonder if that's still happening. I think I may have figured it out, but I'd love some confirmation. Specifically, if it's failing for you, I'd like to know. I post from an invalid address, so you could reply on list, or if you think that's bad netiquette you could e-mail me at the dragontoe address associated with my GPG key ID. Thanks -- Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience. pgpsE8E7KPbJc.pgp Description: PGP signature
mailing list subject line tags
Hi all, Recently I've been growing increasingly annoyed (at work mainly, though I've never been a fan generally) with mailing lists which put [mailinglist name] in the subject line. At work we often get threads which end up bouncing around as many as a half-dozen such lists, which results in subject lines like: Subject: [my-list] [some-unglodly-long-list] [foo-list] [some-other-list] Here's the detail I actuall care about ...which of course is too long to be able to see the actual subject of the message in Mutt, in any reasonably-sized terminal window. So what I'm looking for, IN THE INDEX ONLY, is a way to strip out all that junk being displayed, without actually removing it from the message. It is, unfortunately, still useful to be able to see which mailing lists have seen the thread[*]. Can Mutt do this? -=-=-=- [*] In general I'd prefer that mailing lists not prefix the subject line in this fashion, and I always raise that issue on mailing lists that do so. That said, when the info is available, it is actually useful in some instances. Though, not generally for internet lists, which typically don't cross post. In those cases, it's just as easy (and better, since it doesn't pollute other fields) to get the info from other headers. -- Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience. pgpkMraw5L8GF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mailing list subject line tags
* On 18 Oct 2012, Derek Martin wrote: Hi all, Recently I've been growing increasingly annoyed (at work mainly, though I've never been a fan generally) with mailing lists which put [mailinglist name] in the subject line. At work we often get threads Me too. Apply replacelist and subjectrx from https://bitbucket.org/dgc/mutt-dgc/src . -- David Champion • d...@bikeshed.us
Re: mailing list subject line tags
* On 18 Oct 2012, David Champion wrote: * On 18 Oct 2012, Derek Martin wrote: Hi all, Recently I've been growing increasingly annoyed (at work mainly, though I've never been a fan generally) with mailing lists which put [mailinglist name] in the subject line. At work we often get threads Me too. Apply replacelist and subjectrx from https://bitbucket.org/dgc/mutt-dgc/src . Sorry, I thought there were docs and examples there, but I was wrong. See http://www.mail-archive.com/mutt-users@mutt.org/msg44387.html -- David Champion • d...@bikeshed.us
