On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Helge Hafting <helge.haft...@hist.no> wrote:
> Murray Eisenberg wrote: > >> I agree with the O.P. on this. This is something that, surely, is easily >> fixed at the server end, so that each message going out from the server has, >> say, "[LyX]" prepended to the subject. >> > > But we don't want that, so please don't wreck it on the server. > If you want to see "[LyX]", set up your own mail software to > add this to the mail that gets delivered to you. > Easy to do on a UNIX box with procmail; I do it all the time for other lists. But how do I do this with GMail which is what I use for reading "lyx users"? Their label scheme isn't as useful as Subject: line tags like [LyX]. > Many other mailing lists do this. There should be no need for the >> subscribers to have to filter. > > > And many other mailing lists don't mess with the subject. There should be > no need for users to suffer the messed-up headers. > Nobody _has_ to filter. If they want the mail in a single folder, > they can have that. Those of us who subscribe to several lists with some > volume, usually set up filtering to avoid a huge mess. And it'd be a huge > mess even if the subject fields were abused. > > This list was created without subject manipulation, please just respect > that. I subscribe to some lists that do mangle the subject. I don't like it, > but I don't request a change. It is the list maintainter's choice to make. > Then you'd hate that on my Linux workstation I mung the headers of *all* incoming mail from lists to set a Reply-to back to the list, which is what I believe how *all* lists should be set up in the first place.Plus munging in Subject: line tag. Once those messages are on my machine they are mine and I'll do what ever I like to them. I don't care what or how the list owner set it up on my Linux machines I'll force all those message to be the way I expect them to be. If only GMail were as flexible so the headers of messages to this list could be munged with an explicit Reply-to: header. Regards, Trevor. <>< Re: deemed!
