In regard to: Re: [secureshell]: Subject emails, Gary Wilson said (at...:
>The given solutions for both procmail and outlook are fine and dandy
>if what is required is filtering for make the list traffic obvious, but
>as already mentioned by others on various occasions, filtering may not
>be what is wanted. I certainly do NOT want to filter the list mail into
>a separate mailbox/file/universe, I merely want list traffic to be more
>obvious in amongst other mail in my inbox.
Ok, can your mail client be made to sort or flag as important based on Sender?
>I also note that over the last few weeks there have been more people
>asking for the subject line to be modified than not.
That's correct, but may be a red herring. I'm happy with the lack of
subject mangling, why should I vote No ("shout down") every time someone
suggests the change? I'm willing to admit that I probably am in the minority
on this issue, on this list. That doesn't mean I think the change would
be a good one.
Maybe we should vote, and then re-vote whenever anyone new joins the list
or anyone unsubscribes? ;-)
Temple is generously hosting the list, so ultimately Stan gets to be a
dictator about the list policies. He might be willing to change list policies
if a majority of people want something changed, but ultimately it's up to
him. Sniping about how easy it would be for him to make the change isn't
really called for, IMHO.
>Considering that altering the subject to contain the required text
>will NOT affect any of the people who (kindly) provided ideas
>to alternatives,
It will affect us, the question is, to what extent? It also will likely
affect (poor) mail clients that do threading based on Subject. I can
already envision subject lines like:
Subject: [secureshell] Re[3]: [secureshell] Re: [secureshell]
> it is hard to see what logical reason the listmoms
I'm not sure who you're referring to, but it's probably not called for,
whoever it's aimed at.
>would come up with _not_ to do the changes. The only vaguely sane
>reasons for not doing the change were:
>
>1) Stubborness
Some people would call this "principal". ;-)
>2) Because it would mean someone, somewhere would have to spend all
> of 5 minutes changing a config file...
Again, pointing out how easy it would be for Stan to make this change
isn't really relevant to the overall conversation.
Tim
--
Tim Mooney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Information Technology Services (701) 231-1076 (Voice)
Room 242-J6, IACC Building (701) 231-8541 (Fax)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
