[Orgmode] Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
Achim Gratz writes: > Robert Pluim writes: >> Triage is for *computers* to do, they're much better at it than humans. > > Then let your MUA strip the tag off for you and live a happier life. > >> Also, those markers in the subject are obnoxious and *really* annoying, >> and take up valuable screen space. Please don't clutter up the org-mode >> emails for zero benefit. > > They are very valuable when you need to quickly check things from a > computer where you don't have set up your filtering for instance. Plus > they are indispensable for everyone who decides to not filter mail into > folders or anything like that. They don't force you to not filter, so > why should you force them to change their workflow? Using your same argument from above, why don't they configure their MUA to add the tag? Why should I be forced to change my workflow to strip it? (and the tags are not 'indispensable' for human triage: you can display the To/CC or List-Id headers, which will contain org-mode as well). >> org-mode list email has a List-Id header, the list software has already >> taken care of it for you. I fail to see how much can go wrong with >> filtering on that, configure it once and you're done. (or read the list >> via gmane, all nicely split out for you). > > This header is there for software to see, not for humans. There is > multiple redundancy in both the headers and the tagging of the subject > line and this is what makes things resilient. And yes, I read the list > via Gmane/GNUS, but that doesn't mean everyone has to do it the same > way. Right, which is why I argue for the minimal simplicity of just setting the header, and letting people take care of anything else they want to do afterwards. Anyway, I think we've reached the end of this discussion, it's definitely not relevant to org-mode anymore. Whoever maintains the list will decide what they prefer. Robert ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
[Orgmode] Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
Robert Pluim writes: > Triage is for *computers* to do, they're much better at it than humans. Then let your MUA strip the tag off for you and live a happier life. > Also, those markers in the subject are obnoxious and *really* annoying, > and take up valuable screen space. Please don't clutter up the org-mode > emails for zero benefit. They are very valuable when you need to quickly check things from a computer where you don't have set up your filtering for instance. Plus they are indispensable for everyone who decides to not filter mail into folders or anything like that. They don't force you to not filter, so why should you force them to change their workflow? > org-mode list email has a List-Id header, the list software has already > taken care of it for you. I fail to see how much can go wrong with > filtering on that, configure it once and you're done. (or read the list > via gmane, all nicely split out for you). This header is there for software to see, not for humans. There is multiple redundancy in both the headers and the tagging of the subject line and this is what makes things resilient. And yes, I read the list via Gmane/GNUS, but that doesn't mean everyone has to do it the same way. Achim. -- +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+ Wavetables for the Terratec KOMPLEXER: http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#KomplexerWaves ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
[Orgmode] Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
Nick Dokos writes: > [Forgot to reply-all - sorry about that. Apologies to Robert for > the duplicate email.] > This is why I have Mail-Copies-To: never in my headers :) No biggie. > Robert Pluim wrote: > >> Nick Dokos writes: >> >> > Štěpán Němec wrote: >> > >> >> FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects >> >> of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable >> >> (e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike >> >> [Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject: >> >> header space. >> >> >> >> I have never understood why anyone would like anything like that. >> >> >> > >> > Because I can scan my inbox at a glance and triage quickly. Here's what >> > I see (with mh-e in emacs as my reader): >> > >> >> (disclaimer: I've been seeing this argument for the best part of 20 >> years, I doubt I'm bringing anything new to the table, but I feel >> strongly about it) >> >> Triage is for *computers* to do, they're much better at it than humans. >> > > You are kidding, right? How does the computer know what *I* need to do? > Because you tell it what to do? >> Also, those markers in the subject are obnoxious and *really* annoying, >> and take up valuable screen space. Please don't clutter up the org-mode >> emails for zero benefit. >> > > It is *not* zero benefit to me. OK. Zero benefit to people who split their email then. I must admit I've never understood why people don't, but to each his own. Robert ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
Re: [Orgmode] Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
Štěpán Němec wrote: > ... I still find any kind of such > server-side mangling Evil (see also Robert Pluim's reply, most of which > I could just sign myself), but from Nick Dokos' reply I see that for > people putting all incoming mail into one single place and not able or > willing to do anything more than that it can have its uses, so, each to > their own I guess... > I think you misunderstand my workflow but I don't have time to explain: suffice it to say that my mail handling is very similar to my task handling in org-mode. The two places I look at every morning (and a few times during the day) are my agenda and my inbox. It is important that they both stay lean. Nick ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
[Orgmode] Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
Bastien writes: > Hi Štěpán, > > Štěpán Němec writes: > >> FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects >> of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable >> (e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike >> [Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject: >> header space. > > Not that reducing the label from [Orgmode] to [Org] already seem to be a > progress in the right direction :) > > Would you object having [Org] instead of [Orgmode]? Well, I wrote "anything", so, yeah ;-) But I actually usually read the list through Gmane, so I'm mostly unaffected (and Gnus can also strip the list identifier automatically). I still find any kind of such server-side mangling Evil (see also Robert Pluim's reply, most of which I could just sign myself), but from Nick Dokos' reply I see that for people putting all incoming mail into one single place and not able or willing to do anything more than that it can have its uses, so, each to their own I guess... Thank you for consideration, Štěpán ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
Re: [Orgmode] Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
[Forgot to reply-all - sorry about that. Apologies to Robert for the duplicate email.] Robert Pluim wrote: > Nick Dokos writes: > > > Štěpán Němec wrote: > > > >> FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects > >> of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable > >> (e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike > >> [Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject: > >> header space. > >> > >> I have never understood why anyone would like anything like that. > >> > > > > Because I can scan my inbox at a glance and triage quickly. Here's what > > I see (with mh-e in emacs as my reader): > > > > (disclaimer: I've been seeing this argument for the best part of 20 > years, I doubt I'm bringing anything new to the table, but I feel > strongly about it) > > Triage is for *computers* to do, they're much better at it than humans. > You are kidding, right? How does the computer know what *I* need to do? > Also, those markers in the subject are obnoxious and *really* annoying, > and take up valuable screen space. Please don't clutter up the org-mode > emails for zero benefit. > It is *not* zero benefit to me. Nick ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
[Orgmode] Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
Nick Dokos writes: > Štěpán Němec wrote: > >> FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects >> of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable >> (e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike >> [Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject: >> header space. >> >> I have never understood why anyone would like anything like that. >> > > Because I can scan my inbox at a glance and triage quickly. Here's what > I see (with mh-e in emacs as my reader): > (disclaimer: I've been seeing this argument for the best part of 20 years, I doubt I'm bringing anything new to the table, but I feel strongly about it) Triage is for *computers* to do, they're much better at it than humans. Also, those markers in the subject are obnoxious and *really* annoying, and take up valuable screen space. Please don't clutter up the org-mode emails for zero benefit. > ... > 221+ 01/04 Štěpán Němec [Orgmode] Re: should the mail list be > splitted resp. sub-tagged ?< > writes: > Hi Torste > ... > > If I am in org-mode mode (so to speak), I'll look at it. If not, I will > skip it for now and get back to it later. > > Having the mailing list markers is indispensable to me. I belong to > quite a few MLs and the ones that don't have a marker are a PITA. > Shortening the marker is fine: eliminating it is not. > >> If you want to somehow treat the mails from this list specially, why >> don't you filter on the presence of the mailing list address in the >> headers, for example? >> > > Because all of that needs additional setup, both at the front end to do > the filtering and at the back end to make sure that I don't miss anything. > And that needs debugging and continued maintenance (and missed emails when > something goes wrong, which inevitably it will). I'd rather have the list > software take care of it. org-mode list email has a List-Id header, the list software has already taken care of it for you. I fail to see how much can go wrong with filtering on that, configure it once and you're done. (or read the list via gmane, all nicely split out for you). Robert ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
Re: [Orgmode] Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
Štěpán Němec wrote: > FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects > of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable > (e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike > [Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject: > header space. > > I have never understood why anyone would like anything like that. > Because I can scan my inbox at a glance and triage quickly. Here's what I see (with mh-e in emacs as my reader): ... 221+ 01/04 Štěpán Němec [Orgmode] Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?< writes: > Hi Torste ... If I am in org-mode mode (so to speak), I'll look at it. If not, I will skip it for now and get back to it later. Having the mailing list markers is indispensable to me. I belong to quite a few MLs and the ones that don't have a marker are a PITA. Shortening the marker is fine: eliminating it is not. > If you want to somehow treat the mails from this list specially, why > don't you filter on the presence of the mailing list address in the > headers, for example? > Because all of that needs additional setup, both at the front end to do the filtering and at the back end to make sure that I don't miss anything. And that needs debugging and continued maintenance (and missed emails when something goes wrong, which inevitably it will). I'd rather have the list software take care of it. Nick ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
Re: [Orgmode] Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Bastien wrote: > Hi Štěpán, > > Štěpán Němec writes: > >> FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects >> of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable >> (e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike >> [Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject: >> header space. > > Not that reducing the label from [Orgmode] to [Org] already seem to be a > progress in the right direction :) > > Would you object having [Org] instead of [Orgmode]? > >> I have never understood why anyone would like anything like that. > > As Giovanni recalled, this is a standard GNU practice and I won't break > it. Maybe this is a leftover from the time when most used email clients > had no clever filters -- but maybe it's still useful for web archiving > or other purposes I cannot think of right now. > Is the capital-O gnu practice as well? I have no objection to changing the tag, since gmail filters my mail for me, but a lower-case-o seems more consistent with other org nomenclature. -- Jeffrey Horn http://www.failuretorefrain.com/jeff/ ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
Re: [Orgmode] Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
Hi Štěpán, Štěpán Němec writes: > FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects > of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable > (e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike > [Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject: > header space. Not that reducing the label from [Orgmode] to [Org] already seem to be a progress in the right direction :) Would you object having [Org] instead of [Orgmode]? > I have never understood why anyone would like anything like that. As Giovanni recalled, this is a standard GNU practice and I won't break it. Maybe this is a leftover from the time when most used email clients had no clever filters -- but maybe it's still useful for web archiving or other purposes I cannot think of right now. Cheers, -- Bastien ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
[Orgmode] Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
Bastien writes: > Hi Torsten, > > Torsten Wagner writes: > >> Using [Orgmode] as a tag on the orgmode list is an arguable point. >> Maybe the someone higher in the queue like to make a decision to >> shorten it to [Org]. > > I agreed this would be an improvement to use [Org]. > > If nobody have a strong objection, I'll make this change in two days. FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable (e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike [Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject: header space. I have never understood why anyone would like anything like that. If you want to somehow treat the mails from this list specially, why don't you filter on the presence of the mailing list address in the headers, for example? Štěpán ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
Re: [Orgmode] Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
William Gardella writes: [...] > For this "info overload" reason, I find it easier to follow this list as > a GMANE newsgroup ( nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/ ) rather > than as a mailing list. Makes it easier to tune it out when I'm > awaiting urgent things in my email. > > And if you're a Gnus user (Gnuser?) it's more or less the same > difference, interface- and ease-wise :) Mind you, if you're a Gnus user, mail splitting makes it trivial to have org-mode messages sent off to a different mail group... and, in fact, just as trivial to split off all the [babel] messages! In this vein, I could suggest that some extra tags might be used: - agenda :: agenda views - export :: export related (or even [latex], [html], ...) - gtd:: getting things done suitably shortened maybe? I'm not bothered in any case as all my org emails go into their own group and sit there until I am on the train... or until weekends when I might have some time to catch up (like tonight). -- : Eric S Fraga (GnuPG: 0xC89193D8FFFCF67D) in Emacs 23.2.1 : using Org-mode version 7.4 (release_7.4.25.geb0d) ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
[Orgmode] Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
Torsten Wagner writes: > Dear all, > since I subscribed to the maillist, the traffic increased > enormously. This is very nice, however, recently I got difficulties to > filter throw all the post searching for relevant topics for me. The > babel project is using already a [babel] tag, and other tags floating > around ([PATCH],[OT],[Bug]). Thinking of tags, I wonder why we use > [Orgmode] since all mails coming from emacs-orgmode(a)gnu.org which is > a strong indicator already. > > In general I guess a good mail client is capable to sort mails based > on this tags or mail address. I just wonder whether there is an > official list of tags on a prominent place like worg, or if especially > the devs would like a separate emacs-orgmode-dev maillist. > If you believe a "How to post on the orgmode mailing list"-article in > worg helps I would be willing to start with one. > > Best regards > > Torsten > > > For this "info overload" reason, I find it easier to follow this list as a GMANE newsgroup ( nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/ ) rather than as a mailing list. Makes it easier to tune it out when I'm awaiting urgent things in my email. And if you're a Gnus user (Gnuser?) it's more or less the same difference, interface- and ease-wise :) Best, -- William Gardella J.D. Candidate Class of 2011, University of Pittsburgh School of Law ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
[Orgmode] Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
Torsten Wagner writes: > Dear all, > since I subscribed to the maillist, the traffic increased > enormously. This is very nice, however, recently I got difficulties to > filter throw all the post searching for relevant topics for me. The > babel project is using already a [babel] tag, and other tags floating > around ([PATCH],[OT],[Bug]). Thinking of tags, I wonder why we use > [Orgmode] since all mails coming from emacs-orgmode(a)gnu.org which is > a strong indicator already. > > In general I guess a good mail client is capable to sort mails based > on this tags or mail address. I just wonder whether there is an > official list of tags on a prominent place like worg, or if especially > the devs would like a separate emacs-orgmode-dev maillist. > If you believe a "How to post on the orgmode mailing list"-article in > worg helps I would be willing to start with one. > > Best regards > > Torsten > I cut down on the "information overload" in my inbox by not viewing this list as mail at all. Instead, I subscribe to it as an NNTP newsgroup, gmane.emacs.orgmode at nntp://news.gmane.org/, which I view in Gnus. This keeps the incredibly active conversation and development of org-mode (which is a very good thing!) in a separate corner of my computing life from my email. From there it's easier to narrow down what's relevant to org-mode topics I have an interest in, and I can also leave newsgroup to its own devices when I don't have time to look at this list. -- William Gardella J.D. Candidate Class of 2011, University of Pittsburgh School of Law ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
