> On 03 Oct 2014, at 11:21 , Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote: > > > Am 03.10.2014 um 19:11 schrieb LuKreme: >>> On 29 Sep 2014, at 11:19 , Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote: >>> >>> Am 29.09.2014 um 19:14 schrieb Nels Lindquist: >>>> On 9/29/2014 10:54 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: >>>> >>>>> please remove markers like [SPAM] if a mesage was flagged before >>>>> reply - they lead often that a message goes to junk- instead the >>>>> list-folder :-) >>>> >>>> Please teach your users to filter on the List-ID: header rather than >>>> Subject: for this list. The issue can be entirely avoided without >>>> requiring everyone else in the world to alter their behaviour >>> >>> the [SPAM] marker comes *before* all other sieve-filters >>> otherwise it would not catch faked From-Headers >> >> You should not be filtering on Subject. Scoring on subject is fine, >> but filtering on it is a terrible idea > > i try to explain the intention of the thread a last time: > > * what i filter or not don't matter, i look in my junk-folder > * it was meant as friendly reminder if somebody don't whitelist > the SA list which is the reason [SPAM] appears in *his* incoming > mail it is a good idea after press "reply" remove that marker
His is whose? A lot of people add [TAGS] to their incoming mail. If someone adds [SPAM] to list coming from here that’s fine. No one should be running SA on messages to this list anyway. > * i just don't get what needs a discussion about such a hint It doesn’t sound like a hint, and it’s not useful, and it doesn’t do anything that I can see other than annoy people who’ve replied to you. > * it is a bad idea to write mails with spam-markers in the subject [SPAM] is not a spam marker I’ve ever seen so it seems perfectly OK to me. If they were adding something like (Spam? 7.9) then you might, maybe, just possibly, have an argument. > because you never know how they are treated in case of the different > RCPT's on a mailing list and since *your intention as sender* is > that the list-members reveive your mail *it is in your intention* > to not put things in the subject making that more unlikely How mail is treated by the recipient is up to the recipient. > again: > it is not a matter of talking about spam on the SA list > it is just a matter if you already made the mistake pass > the list mail through your contentfilter don't amplify it > by bounce back the marker in your response You are assuming, I think wrongly, that the [SPAM] tag is being used because of a content filter and not simply a tag to identify the name of the list. > do i personally care? > no - why should i? Then why have you gone on so long about it? > it's not my mail which may get not the attention the sender likes Then I suggest you take a page from Bobby McFerrin, “Don’t worry, be happy” and just assume the people subscribed to this mailing list know what they are doing. -- It was all very well going about pure logic and how the universe was ruled by logic and the harmony of numbers, but the plain fact was that the disc was manifestly traversing space on the back of a giant turtle and the gods had a habit of going round to atheists' houses and smashing their windows.
