John,
JCKSince the secretariat is
JCK operating with very tight resources (something else that has
JCK been in enough documents and presentations that I assume/hope
JCK everyone knows), it is in _our_ advantage to let them automate
JCK anything they can sensibly automate without causing
At last a meaningful remark, quoting from below (far below)...
I cannot believe we are even having such a dumbass debate.
With apologies, I do not appreciate is the number of individuals
who have made observations based on their personal experience
concerning the SPAM subject. Trading war
Mark Allman wrote:
A tag in the subject line is clearly overdue. But, if we're going to do
it, let's do it right. Please use [IETF] not [ietf] because it's
more befitting of a proper acronym.
Just what we need, a mailing list that SHOUTS.
(Then again, for this list, maybe it constitutes fair
Keith and others,
While...
(1) I agree that this (and any SpamAssassin or other
header-insertion or filtering) would, ideally, better be
done as a per-subscriber optional feature, and
(2) I recognize that, if for some reason (unfathomable
to me,
From lines and Reply-to and whatever are headers that are meant to
be processed by computers. So, you can say all you want about how
dumb MUAs do or do not process these (and how intermediate mail
servers should keep their mits off). Now, humans use these lines,
too. So, call them dual
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:07:24 -0500
Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm a bit surprised at the frequency at which people who claim to be
networking protocol engineers fail to appreciate the benefits of clean
separation-of-function and layering.
Hopefully the drawbacks are appreciated
John,
Trying to make this response a brief one, and hopefully the last message
I need to write on this topic for a while.
1) While I generally support reducing secretariat workload when
possible, I don't think it follows that it's to our advantage to let
them automate anything they can sensibly
The subject line, on the other hand, is just for people.
Book titles are for people, too. Does that mean that it's okay for a
bookseller or library to change the titles on books, in order to help
the consumer indentify where they came from?
Um, my library slaps a helpful identification
Keith-
Putting [foo] in the subject header is just another example of this
trend. Sure, it might be useful to people with dysfunctional MUAs,
and there are a lot of those people out there. There were once a lot
of people whose MUAs couldn't do reply all, too.
This is just wrong.
From
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:19:29 EST, Mark Allman said:
Um, my library slaps a helpful identification tag on the spine of every
book to help me find it. Your analogy, man ...
A quick sampling of 15 books from our local public library shows that:
a) All 15 have spine tags for on the shelves and
Not an option. I don't even have POP3 access to the email server.
Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/17/03 08:26:40
would it be asking too much to add [ietf] to the subject line of
each message?
yes. it's completely redundant information, and it interferes with
i tend to agree with keith. this thread should have started life
with the subject line I can't figure out how to use filters on my
client-side or web-side email system and died right there.
(Both hotmail and yahoo can at least filter on To: or Cc:
which'll catch emails sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Keith Moore wrote:
Because we, people on the road, use various mail systems and even web
based mail
so do the rest of us. ever tried to read mail from a palm pilot?
those [foo] turds get *really* annoying...
Why such a war for just 6 characters, while all mailing
Because we, people on the road, use various mail systems and even web based mail, where the filters are not applied yet...
Why such a war for just 6 characters, while all mailing lists do it?
Have you been out there?
Let's give it a try and see...
Cheers
On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 04:26, Keith
Because we, people on the road, use various mail systems and even web
based mail
so do the rest of us. ever tried to read mail from a palm pilot?
those [foo] turds get *really* annoying...
Why such a war for just 6 characters, while all mailing lists do it?
because I've tried it, and found
Hmmm,
I am wondering if running this e-mail thread is adding a couple years worth of 6byte
additions to the subject.
Seems silly to me - I prefer lists to do this - makes many peoples life easier -
doesn't make anyones life harder (and frankly if 6 bytes is going to blow your
bandwidth budget
doesn't make anyones life harder
it hinders readability, esp. on small screens
it hinders sorting of mail by subject
it gets messed up with conversations involving multiple lists
it's a pain to write filters to take the stuff out...
bandwidth is not the issue.
Please consider this as someone
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:39:21 +1200, Franck Martin said:
Why such a war for just 6 characters, while all mailing lists do it?
If all mailing lists do it (which in itself is a dubious assertion) is sufficient
justification, why are we bothering with an IETF? Maybe we should just
disband and let
Is invoking Microsoft close enough to invoking Hitler to end this
thread? (Hint: please!).
Keith is right. If you don't like the way the IETF discussion list
comes into your mailbox, start a reflector that fixes it the way you
like it. IETF+censored does more violence to its contents than we're
19 matches
Mail list logo
