Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On Aug 3, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 8/3/11 1:26 PM, Martin Rex wrote: subject_prefix will work even with very ancient MUAs, such as the one I use, so I'm OK. But the subject_prefix does not scale well when multiple IETF mailings lists are CC-ed and discussion ensues (replying to all lists). Doctor, it hurts when I do that. /psa Yah, I find this particularly bad when reading email on my Datapoint 3300 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
Keith Moore wrote: On Aug 12, 2011, at 10:24 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: So the question really goes to the mailman people: can we get an option to make the prefix inclusion a subscriber option? I confess to being more than a little perplexed as to why you and others think this idea in and of itself is a useful solution to anything. If having it be a per-subscriber option (off by default) would aid migration to a world where subject tags are not commonplace and therefore not widely expected, that might be worth it. Maybe having them off by default will encourage more use of List-ID. +1 One way to view this is to focus on the central issue and why/when the subject tag was useful: The need for Discussion Groups separations But why did this occur? Before Offline MUA became prevalent, online group ware conferencing provided the separation and it was the dominant user types. Off hand, there were at least five different user types or access points: USER1: Online (console, web, gui) portals, folders separations available USER2: Offline w/ Online access to folders using non IETF method (i.e. Exchange) USER3: Offline w/ Online access to folders using IETF IMAP standard method USER4: Offline w/ Online access to folders using IETF NNTP standard method USER5: Offline using IETF POP3 Standard but with no inherent folder separations So pre 2001 USER5 who may not have a MUA with support for RFC2919 (List-ID) or flexibility to add new headers, needed a help using an undesirable mail tampering idea - subject list tags. But today, RFC 2919 is widely adopted, MUA are more flexible and DKIM is also adding new pressures to avoid using this Subject List tag kludge. So if the central issue is separation, we now have three IETF Methods for offline users to achieve this - IMAP, NNTP and LIST-ID sorting, and a new DKIM standard that this kludge conflicts with. -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
Barry Leiba wrote: So the question really goes to the mailman people: can we get an option to make the prefix inclusion a subscriber option? Each list would have a default behaviour, but each user could change it (just as I now change every list's suppress duplicates option when I subscribe to it, which makes sure my folders contain complete threads). That would make everyone happy. As long as the option goes by mailing list, and everyone has to eat the preference of whoever sets up the list, we'll have endless and non-productive arguments (like this one) about it. +1. But its not all waste :) For me, reading these user support issues is feed for product improvements to see where what new sysop vs user needs are considered. The Subject prefix was one of them we looked to: - minimize the promotion of mail tampering ideas, - its less needed today with newer MUAS, and - we have new DKIM considerations. It first appeared be a good and easy candidate for a new user option to override the list setting, but when the code change requirements were looked at, at least for our software (independent list server and smtp server), it was not a feasible feature to implement without multiple design methods to check out and significant code change simply because the list server creates a single 5322 payload for a smart host SMTP connection multi-RCPT distribution. I guess for an SMTP server that has built-in list distribution and has access to the list membership database, it can do customize payload per member. -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
So the question really goes to the mailman people: can we get an option to make the prefix inclusion a subscriber option? I confess to being more than a little perplexed as to why you and others think this idea in and of itself is a useful solution to anything. The problem with putting tags into the subject field is fundamental: The semantics just don't match. Subject field text is routinely reused in a variety of ways - such reuse is in fact openly condoned and encouraged by our various email standards. And this reuse breaks tags that are necessarily bound to the context of the original message. For example, suppose I elect to have lists add tags to the messages I receive. That's all fine and dandy until I decide to reply to one of those messages. Now the tag goes right back to the list and gets redistributed to the people who do not want it. This problem can be ameliorated somewhat by having the list actively strip it's own tag from messages sent to recipients that have elected not to receive the tag, but you're still left with the problems associated with replies to messages sent to multiple lists. Each list would have a default behaviour, but each user could change it (just as I now change every list's suppress duplicates option when I subscribe to it, which makes sure my folders contain complete threads). That would make everyone happy. No it won't. See above. In fact by making the presence of the tag unpredictable it may actually make things worse. Ned ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On Aug 12, 2011, at 10:24 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: So the question really goes to the mailman people: can we get an option to make the prefix inclusion a subscriber option? I confess to being more than a little perplexed as to why you and others think this idea in and of itself is a useful solution to anything. If having it be a per-subscriber option (off by default) would aid migration to a world where subject tags are not commonplace and therefore not widely expected, that might be worth it. Maybe having them off by default will encourage more use of List-ID. I agree that the problems you mention are real. As long as the subject tag were an option, lists supporting it would still need to be able to strip subject tags from replies. Replies to messages sent to multiple lists would still be messy. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
- Original Message - From: Martin Rex m...@sap.com To: Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org Cc: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:00 AM Barry Leiba wrote: On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote: If one intends to actually *process* close to all of the Emails hitting one's inbox in near real time, then List-Id:, and any pre-sorting based on it, will _always_ slow down processing (unless the MUA or the processing is flawed). Whereas a subject prefix significantly facilitates tracking of stuff in a single large inbox. I'm getting 300+/day Emails and try to read 95% of it (my company internal Email is completely seperate at ~30/day, though). This makes no sense to me, Martin. Please explain why sorting based on a subject prefix will work, while sorting based on a List-ID header field will not. I do not sort EMail at all (my MUA does not support sorting). subject_prefix _obviates_ sorting. MUAs typically display the inbox with (status,sender,subject,received-time). With subject_prefix I can quite easily tell apart discussions from several IETF mailing lists, and it works with _every_ MUA with default settings. tp Until you get a Last Call, which is cross posted to the WG list, and some replies have [wgfb] and some do not, and then it gets cross posted to SAAG and we get [wgfb][saag] or [saag][wgfb] or [saag] or [wgfb] or You could of course request an update to all MUAs to ignore prefixes when collating. But nope, prefixes are a dead technology; do not insert them on the IETF list (speaking as one whose MUA, supplied by the manufacturer who supplies most of the world's MUAs, cannot do anything with List-Id:-(. Tom Petch /tp -Martin ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 07:16:39PM +0200, Martin Rex wrote: Whereas a subject prefix significantly facilitates tracking of stuff in a single large inbox. I'm getting 300+/day Emails and try to read 95% of it (my company internal Email is completely seperate at ~30/day, though). Let me start with a preamble: I think that those of us who choose to drink from the firehose by subscribing to many mailing lists or newsgroups or RSS feeds, especially those with lots of traffic, have by doing so taken upon ourselves the obligation of finding and configuring the right tools to make our decisions work for us. (And in a complementary way, I think those operating those resources, have taken upon themselves the obligation to run those resources per spec, e.g. -request per RFC 2142, List-Id per RFC 2919, and so on.) When everyone does so, things work very smoothly...which is ummm, kinda the reason that we have these standards. Now, to the substance of what you've said: I'm not surprised this presents difficulties: funneling all incoming mail into one mailbox means that...all incoming mail is in one mailbox. And while it's still possible to sort, tag, and filter that mail easily if you have a quality mail client [1] those tasks aren't as easy as they could be if that mail was in separate mailboxes. So let me suggest this methodology, which isn't the right one or the best one or anything like that, just one that works for me. Decide which mailing lists are important to you, which are less important, etc. Use procmail to sort all incoming messages on a per-list basis into individual files in directories named accordingly, e.g: high/outages medium/nanog medium/ietf medium/ip medium/infowarrior low/funsec low/nanog-announce Now it's all pre-sorted by list, making it easy to peruse any of them, and all the lists are organized by priority, making it easier to decide which ones to read when you're pressed for time. (It's also possible to clone incoming messages with procmail so that you can also have a single file that has copies of everything, just in case you want that.) No need for subject-line tags. And everything is nicely separated so that if you choose to search it it's easy to focus on what you want. This also makes it easy to handle archiving, deletion, and other mail-related tasks. ---rsk [1] I use and highly recommend mutt, which is lightweight, pretty secure, full-featured, extensible, well-supported, works beautifully via ssh, and runs on all professional-quality operating systems. It's also quite efficient and makes many common mail tasks very easy and fast. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 07:00:29AM +0200, Martin Rex wrote: With subject_prefix I can quite easily tell apart discussions from several IETF mailing lists, and it works with _every_ MUA with default settings. The fact that poor, broken, obsolete, or non-standards-compliant MUAs exist is not a valid reason for inflicting a fundamentally-broken kludge on the people who have chosen their MUAs with care. And actually, no, you can't *always* tell those discussion apart, nor can you tell them from off-list replies...because (a) discussions which cross multiple lists may carry the subject-line tags from each list and (b) off-list replies will also -- unless someone takes the time to hand-edit the Subject line and remove the tag or mark it [off-list] -- carry the tag. This is one of the many reasons why List-Id is vastly superior: it solves both these problems. For example, consider these exquisite little inconveniences (chosen from thousands of examples on hand): Subject: Re: [asterisk-security] [asterisk-dev] dahdi system.conf update Subject: [WEB SECURITY] [HITB-Announce] HITB2011AMS Conference Materials Subject: [opensuse-project] Re: [opensuse-testing] Re: [opensuse-factory] Request to change MS6 I like the last one particularly: as the conversation thread migrated, the subject-line tags managed to gradually colonize the entire Subject line, thereby obliviating the actual Subject. (Yes, incidentally, I suppose you could set up your MUA to honor the leftmost tag, but that does nothing to solve problem (b) above or any of the other I haven't bothered to enumerate, and anyway if your MUA is that smart...then you could just use List-Id.) And I haven't even gotten into all the circumstances where [.*] appears on a Subject line and has nothing to do with the mailing list's name. ---rsk ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:49:22AM -0400, Richard Kulawiec wrote: And actually, no, you can't *always* tell those discussion apart, nor can you tell them from off-list replies. List headers don't guarantee helping with that, though, either, because many lists will supporess the echo of the list mail to you if you are also mentioned in the addressee headers. Given the prevalence of people using reply-all, that happens often. Then some mail in the discussion arrives in your inbox and other mail arrives in the list box. And yes, this could be alleviated by people replying just to the list, but a lot of mail clients seem not to provide a convenient way to do that. I don't want the additional subject line cruft, but the list headers are not a magic answer. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
Richard Kulawiec wrote: Let me start with a preamble: I think that those of us who choose to drink from the firehose by subscribing to many mailing lists List-Id: is only useful for folks who have either lots of time on their hands, or want to use automatic archival and have no desire to actually process the email they're receiving. Now, to the substance of what you've said: I'm not surprised this presents difficulties: funneling all incoming mail into one mailbox means that...all incoming mail is in one mailbox. Yes, and that is the most efficient way to perform full processing. I'm a simple human being that can focus his mind and his eyesight only on one single thing at a time, so everything has to be serialized anyway, and no amount of slicing and dicing the stuff will reduce the amount of processing -- but most of it will incur additional actions to open it when it is not queued in a single inbox. And while it's still possible to sort, tag, and filter that mail easily if you have a quality mail client [1] those tasks aren't as easy as they could be if that mail was in separate mailboxes. seperate mailboxes is OK for archiving, but it adds complexity and costs additional time if the intention is to really process 95% of the stuff (5% is junk that I delete without opening). -Martin ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
List-Id: is only useful for folks who have either lots of time on their hands, or want to use automatic archival and have no desire to actually process the email they're receiving. ... I'm a simple human being that can focus his mind and his eyesight only on one single thing at a time, so everything has to be serialized anyway, and no amount of slicing and dicing the stuff will reduce the amount of processing -- but most of it will incur additional actions to open it when it is not queued in a single inbox. Martin, please don't assume that everyone deals with their email the way you do. I sort my mail using List-ID header fields, each list's messages go into a separate mailbox (organized much the way Richard Kulawiec suggests), and I find it *fabulously* useful and efficient. Still, I would never suggest that you had to do it that way, nor that your way isn't useful. Your way isn't useful FOR ME. Apparently, my way isn't useful FOR YOU. À chacun, son goût, after all. So the question really goes to the mailman people: can we get an option to make the prefix inclusion a subscriber option? Each list would have a default behaviour, but each user could change it (just as I now change every list's suppress duplicates option when I subscribe to it, which makes sure my folders contain complete threads). That would make everyone happy. As long as the option goes by mailing list, and everyone has to eat the preference of whoever sets up the list, we'll have endless and non-productive arguments (like this one) about it. Barry ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On Aug 11, 2011, at 8:24 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:49:22AM -0400, Richard Kulawiec wrote: And actually, no, you can't *always* tell those discussion apart, nor can you tell them from off-list replies. List headers don't guarantee helping with that, though, either, because many lists will supporess the echo of the list mail to you if you are also mentioned in the addressee headers. Given the prevalence of people using reply-all, that happens often. Then some mail in the discussion arrives in your inbox and other mail arrives in the list box. And yes, this could be alleviated by people replying just to the list, but a lot of mail clients seem not to provide a convenient way to do that. :0 Whc: msgid.lock | formail -D 8192 msgid.cache :0 a: .duplicates/ is pretty much magical if you have the ability to procmail. I don't want the additional subject line cruft, but the list headers are not a magic answer. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On Aug 11, 2011, at 12:26 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: List-Id: is only useful for folks who have either lots of time on their hands, or want to use automatic archival and have no desire to actually process the email they're receiving. ... I'm a simple human being that can focus his mind and his eyesight only on one single thing at a time, so everything has to be serialized anyway, and no amount of slicing and dicing the stuff will reduce the amount of processing -- but most of it will incur additional actions to open it when it is not queued in a single inbox. Martin, please don't assume that everyone deals with their email the way you do. I sort my mail using List-ID header fields, each list's messages go into a separate mailbox (organized much the way Richard Kulawiec suggests), and I find it *fabulously* useful and efficient. Still, I would never suggest that you had to do it that way, nor that your way isn't useful. Your way isn't useful FOR ME. Apparently, my way isn't useful FOR YOU. À chacun, son goût, after all. Something that I've observed for many years is that people really don't like to change the tools and practices that they have used regularly and for a long time, even when new tools and/or practices are more functional. (It turns out that I'm the same way. Back in the winter of 1980 I ported James Gosling's Emacs to VMS. I haven't used Gosling Emacs since circa 1985, but I'm still using Gosling's key bindings. I've ported those key bindings to every editor I've used since then. I programmed almost exclusively in C between 1980 and 2009 or so, at which point I started learning Python and now write most of my code in it. I have no regrets about learning Python, but I also have no regrets at sticking with C for so long. Even though GUI interfaces have long since become commonplace on desktops, the application that I use most is still a terminal emulator as an interface to bash. And I'd still be using MH to read my mail if it had decent IMAP support.) So if people want to stick with mail user agents that don't recognize List-ID, if they want to have all of their mail end up in one mailbox, if they want to use sort by subject to classify their incoming mail - I don't blame them. Sure there are better tools these days, but it's understandable if they are hesitant to invest the time required to evaluate and learn new tools and new ways of handling mail, and potentially disrupt their ability to communicate while doing so. Munging the subject field of mailing list traffic is really ugly, but many people have long-entrenched work habits that rely on it. I don't think that existing lists should change their behavior, and I certainly don't think it should be the default behavior for new lists, but I would like to see it be a subscriber option for new lists. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Martin Rex wrote: Richard Kulawiec wrote: Let me start with a preamble: I think that those of us who choose to drink from the firehose by subscribing to many mailing lists List-Id: is only useful for folks who have either lots of time on their hands, or want to use automatic archival and have no desire to actually process the email they're receiving. Don't understand your note List-Id: require lots of time. Now, to the substance of what you've said: I'm not surprised this presents difficulties: funneling all incoming mail into one mailbox means that...all incoming mail is in one mailbox. Yes, and that is the most efficient way to perform full processing. I'm a simple human being that can focus his mind and his eyesight only on one single thing at a time, so everything has to be serialized anyway, and no amount of slicing and dicing the stuff will reduce the amount of processing -- but most of it will incur additional actions to open it when it is not queued in a single inbox. I'm simple human as well and I need processing most of e-mail on mobile devices. Then prefixes in subject don't allow see subject on first sight. What's more sorting into directories allowes download just required messages and don't download lists which can wait. And while it's still possible to sort, tag, and filter that mail easily if you have a quality mail client [1] those tasks aren't as easy as they could be if that mail was in separate mailboxes. seperate mailboxes is OK for archiving, but it adds complexity and costs additional time if the intention is to really process 95% of the stuff (5% is junk that I delete without opening). -Martin ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Patrik - -- Ing. Patrik Halfar Faculty of Information Technology Bozetechova 2, 612 66 Brno, Czech republic Phone: +420 (541) 14-1327 (VUT/office) Phone: +420 (606) 609-172 Jabber: x...@jabbim.cz (private) PGP: B577 58A0 2125 161D 294C 7F77 17B6 B8F0 BE0A 9B1D Web: http://www.fit.vutbr.cz/~ihalfar -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJORB9dAAoJEBe2uPC+CpsdkQUP/iBkNod2RT1GqTNIrCkprIuJ IbhGI1mYONR/IWw5EkonmgasyQnoJmiEr4qftN6xZ5OvrwpElRdKRCRcTLflyaD0 +6y5jzOnuHVe2ZQ8OKo/s8HmuspiQ3mj/PXZ+xz9RydlAJwZodV/Uf8SXUnyFpMN xdlSqa0uDhU3Yproa7YuE4xD9V4BPmajAU7rDRwk2/v/RiehXJPwby8tpn1vtWju xm94aQwU0aoHNBAe+/ntaAB4rZ6H3Zbg9vU4nCbnNygmk8bghRaFVlQugSH9uPSE hGHjurtLt4Vps2lgnz2cNdgrHhe/EYb5PoeezJDw0N9q/5lFFlx/ITeuo3cg7HtS SoESZwSr4AkINRKaluMrsHiYs6iS4at7USjbZnxCv0sBuaVGuAVZqcdKxV9gP158 d3iHc2DtZ/uyjak7sxFTIhCFD3ksCYMpkhwkv61YsCFubs3kjyJkhT1RQsB6ZXEV yxYPAWYGveHisQayWP6nC/EehsLm/T3ZemMRcqAjFc3mFp9TkfBumAdEzfaLchN5 BtaahJxm5O/t5Vh6uRb9zt1Ybc8pVI5auKqYWWVQUSa5G0tEpe4ODmL6ES9f69sK D3nlMAc+FCnqUWLgOuwpZCqlGS92xiKGYoFlHRztUr8hLnZP1kZtfiwxvn4Pzsy5 uMnRyjoCUlmkaGKPNjF/ =QmsU -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On Aug 11, 2011, at 6:58 PM, Martin Rex wrote: Richard Kulawiec wrote: Let me start with a preamble: I think that those of us who choose to drink from the firehose by subscribing to many mailing lists List-Id: is only useful for folks who have either lots of time on their hands, or want to use automatic archival and have no desire to actually process the email they're receiving. Not sure why this is. I sort by the list address in the to: or cc: fields, but that's a limitation of my MTA. Now, to the substance of what you've said: I'm not surprised this presents difficulties: funneling all incoming mail into one mailbox means that...all incoming mail is in one mailbox. Yes, and that is the most efficient way to perform full processing. I'm a simple human being that can focus his mind and his eyesight only on one single thing at a time, so everything has to be serialized anyway, and no amount of slicing and dicing the stuff will reduce the amount of processing -- but most of it will incur additional actions to open it when it is not queued in a single inbox. I think the opposite. Suppose I'm subscribed to WebSec, TLS, PKIX and IETF. There are different threads running in all 4 lists. I come to work in the morning, and see that I have several messages on all lists. If I read them one-by-one in one mailbox, I have to switch contexts for the different threads. If they're sorted into four mailboxes, I can follow one thread, and then another. MUAs can try to sort by thread, but occasionally fail (when people change subjects, like How to use MUAs (was: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?), or when we get a Re: equivalent in some foreign language), so I prefer to see them sorted by date rather than grouped by threads. I'd rather make less context switches and just read mails from a single list grouped together, but that's just me. You may have a different way of handing too much email. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 12:45:06PM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote: Still a little confused how this morphed into a religious war on RFC 2919 / List-Id. I don't think it's a religious war: I think it's long since been demonstrated that RFC 2919 (and 2369) including List-Id are not only good ideas, but best practices, and that subject-line tags should be deprecated/avoided/discouraged, because they're just a kludge. That is, this is an issue of technical merit, not arbitrary whim. So instead of bringing back the obsolete idea of subject-line tags, we should instead be encouraging (a) all IETF lists *not* to use them, but to use List-Id et.al. instead (b) all (relevant) mail software providers to support them and (c) all (relevant) mail server providers to support them. These mechanisms neatly solve a number of problems, and that better positions everyone to tackle those that remain. ---rsk ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On Aug 8, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Richard Kulawiec wrote: On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 12:45:06PM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote: Still a little confused how this morphed into a religious war on RFC 2919 / List-Id. I don't think it's a religious war: I think it's long since been demonstrated that RFC 2919 (and 2369) including List-Id are not only good ideas, but best practices, and that subject-line tags should be deprecated/avoided/discouraged, because they're just a kludge. That is, this is an issue of technical merit, not arbitrary whim. So instead of bringing back the obsolete idea of subject-line tags, we should instead be encouraging (a) all IETF lists *not* to use them, but to use List-Id et.al. instead (b) all (relevant) mail software providers to support them and (c) all (relevant) mail server providers to support them. These mechanisms neatly solve a number of problems, and that better positions everyone to tackle those that remain. +1 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
Richard Kulawiec wrote: I don't think it's a religious war: I think it's long since been demonstrated that RFC 2919 (and 2369) including List-Id are not only good ideas, but best practices, and that subject-line tags should be deprecated/avoided/discouraged, because they're just a kludge. That is, this is an issue of technical merit, not arbitrary whim. So instead of bringing back the obsolete idea of subject-line tags, we should instead be encouraging (a) all IETF lists *not* to use them, -2 List-Id: can be used to automatically archive EMails for mailing list or other distributions which one reads only casually -- there it saves manual work. but to use List-Id et.al. instead (b) all (relevant) mail software providers to support them and (c) all (relevant) mail server providers to support them. These mechanisms neatly solve a number of problems, and that better positions everyone to tackle those that remain. If one intends to actually *process* close to all of the Emails hitting one's inbox in near real time, then List-Id:, and any pre-sorting based on it, will _always_ slow down processing (unless the MUA or the processing is flawed). Whereas a subject prefix significantly facilitates tracking of stuff in a single large inbox. I'm getting 300+/day Emails and try to read 95% of it (my company internal Email is completely seperate at ~30/day, though). -Martin ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote: If one intends to actually *process* close to all of the Emails hitting one's inbox in near real time, then List-Id:, and any pre-sorting based on it, will _always_ slow down processing (unless the MUA or the processing is flawed). Whereas a subject prefix significantly facilitates tracking of stuff in a single large inbox. I'm getting 300+/day Emails and try to read 95% of it (my company internal Email is completely seperate at ~30/day, though). This makes no sense to me, Martin. Please explain why sorting based on a subject prefix will work, while sorting based on a List-ID header field will not. Barry ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
n 9 Aug 2011, at 21:56, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote: On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote: If one intends to actually *process* close to all of the Emails hitting one's inbox in near real time, then List-Id:, and any pre-sorting based on it, will _always_ slow down processing (unless the MUA or the processing is flawed). Whereas a subject prefix significantly facilitates tracking of stuff in a single large inbox. I'm getting 300+/day Emails and try to read 95% of it (my company internal Email is completely seperate at ~30/day, though). This makes no sense to me, Martin. Please explain why sorting based on a subject prefix will work, while sorting based on a List-ID header field will not. I think the idea is that having the Subject prefix will allow sorting by visual inspection of one folder - the Inbox - where List-id will not. I'm guilty of that habit, too, I won't deny it. But this is a red herring - of course, if you can sort matching messages into a folder, you can visually tag them, too. And you can sort them using headers not usually displayed as with those that are. Using an existing header that's already displayed in an index is just a hack, (from majordomo days, not surprisingly, and meant as an aid to broken or ineffectual mail software) and the trick is to upgrade your MUA and list software, or make do with list folders otherwise. Cheers, Sabahattin ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
Barry Leiba wrote: On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote: If one intends to actually *process* close to all of the Emails hitting one's inbox in near real time, then List-Id:, and any pre-sorting based on it, will _always_ slow down processing (unless the MUA or the processing is flawed). Whereas a subject prefix significantly facilitates tracking of stuff in a single large inbox. I'm getting 300+/day Emails and try to read 95% of it (my company internal Email is completely seperate at ~30/day, though). This makes no sense to me, Martin. Please explain why sorting based on a subject prefix will work, while sorting based on a List-ID header field will not. I do not sort EMail at all (my MUA does not support sorting). subject_prefix _obviates_ sorting. MUAs typically display the inbox with (status,sender,subject,received-time). With subject_prefix I can quite easily tell apart discussions from several IETF mailing lists, and it works with _every_ MUA with default settings. -Martin ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On 08/05/2011 20:11, Dave CROCKER wrote: On 8/5/2011 2:56 PM, Doug Barton wrote: To me it boils down to you saying in effect, Here is my way of working with e-mail, and I'd like the IETF to support it. If there was a way that we could do that which had no impact on people who don't work that way (such as the List-Id header) then I'd say go for it! But for those of us who already filter our mail into folders these [tags] are useless clutter that take up valuable screen real estate. Doug, Perhaps you missed the part about this being common practice, including for other IETF mailing lists? Why yes Dave, this is my first time writing an e-mail, or participating in a, what do you call them? Mailing list? So thanks for pointing that out to me. You are already suffering with the useless clutter. The incremental pain for you is going to be nil. That's the argument of someone who thinks that the thing proposed is a good idea. If you believed it to be a bad idea I'm sure that you wouldn't be suggesting that we add to the incremental pain. If they break dkim that's a whole 'nother category of problems. DKIM is designed for to deal with one posting and one delivery. Mailing lists take delivery and re-post. For almost all scenarios, DKIM was not intended to survive re-posting. I wasn't referring to the post from the originator to the list, I was referring to the message posted from the list. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
DKIM is designed for to deal with one posting and one delivery. Mailing lists take delivery and re-post. For almost all scenarios, DKIM was not intended to survive re-posting. I wasn't referring to the post from the originator to the list, I was referring to the message posted from the list. The list signs the message on the way out, so the ietf.org signature verifies. If the original sender signed the message, his signature won't verify but (to collapse several years of flamage on the DKIM list) that's not a problem. I still don't think we should add subject tags for the aforementioned autotrofigiaskylousphagic reasons, but DKIM signs perfectly well either way. R's, John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On 08/08/2011 20:08, John Levine wrote: I still don't think we should add subject tags for the aforementioned autotrofigiaskylousphagic reasons, but DKIM signs perfectly well either way. Thank you for clarifying that. -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On Aug 3, 2011, at 7:21 PM, Richard Kulawiec wrote: -1. This list complies with RFC 2919, which alleviates the need for the horrible, unscalable, obsolete, ugly kludge of Subject-line tags. I suggest that anyone who really, *really* wants them on their copies of messages arrange to have them added locally (perhaps by procmail or similar) and not force them on those of us who have chosen mail processing software that correctly uses List-Id. Still a little confused how this morphed into a religious war on RFC 2919 / List-Id. I *did* mention in the original post that I had been using List-Id to organize mail -- which would lead to folders with a few thousands of unread mails, which I would then unceremoniously dump, because it was just too much to deal with.. Subject-line tags allow me to just drop everything in the inbox and then, at a glance figure out what to read, and in what order. I then move the read stuff (and that that I don't care about) into separate mailboxes. For those who want to do the same (regardless of whether your religious views), this little bit of procmail woks for me, ymmv: # Add an [IETF] to messages to the IETF list. :0 fw * ^List-Id:[ ].*\ietf\.ietf\.org\ |/bin/sed -e 's/^Subject:[ ]*/Subject: [IETF] /' ---rsk ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
--On Friday, August 05, 2011 12:45 -0400 Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote: On Aug 3, 2011, at 7:21 PM, Richard Kulawiec wrote: -1. This list complies with RFC 2919, which alleviates the need for the horrible, unscalable, obsolete, ugly kludge of Subject-line tags. I suggest that anyone who really, *really* wants them on their copies of messages arrange to have them added locally (perhaps by procmail or similar) and not force them on those of us who have chosen mail processing software that correctly uses List-Id. Still a little confused how this morphed into a religious war on RFC 2919 / List-Id. I *did* mention in the original post that I had been using List-Id to organize mail -- which would lead to folders with a few thousands of unread mails, which I would then unceremoniously dump, because it was just too much to deal with.. Subject-line tags allow me to just drop everything in the inbox and then, at a glance figure out what to read, and in what order. I then move the read stuff (and that that I don't care about) into separate mailboxes. Warren, I don't want to participate in the religious war, partially because what I do is in the something else category. But what you are describing could easily be modeled, perhaps even more efficiently, in terms of a search or classification that uses a combination of List-ID (and maybe even the identified list name) and the subject line (and maybe other information) in a boolean or even weighted-score-based search to organize mail. We know how to do those things -- e.g., they lie at the core of so-called Bayesian anti-spam procedures. The problem, religion-independent, is that many of our MUAs don't provide good capabilities for doing anything like that because they don't present interfaces for any of compound boolean search, weighted factor search, effective like this one heuristic search, or successive refinement search -- especially in conjunction with an easy-to-use take everything found and either tag it in a special way or put it in a separate folder mechanism. Most or all of the bits for some of these are in the SIEVE collection, but MUAs and servers that are good at using them and make them easy for users are not widely available, especially for users who have other requirements (like good, conforming, IMAP support). To take the current debate as an example, if a user has to choose between filtering or organizing mail using List-ID and using subject lines, something is fundamentally broken regardless of which choice is made. Singling you out only because you made the comment, I would remind you that your employer's public mail system is a major offender in concentrating on search, rather than folder management, but not providing sophisticated or iterative refinement search procedures (nor supporting SIEVE). I would encourage you to encourage the responsible folks to clean up their act, both in the interests of those users and to set a good example for the industry. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On 08/05/2011 09:45, Warren Kumari wrote: Subject-line tags allow me to just drop everything in the inbox and then, at a glance figure out what to read, and in what order. I then move the read stuff (and that that I don't care about) into separate mailboxes. To me it boils down to you saying in effect, Here is my way of working with e-mail, and I'd like the IETF to support it. If there was a way that we could do that which had no impact on people who don't work that way (such as the List-Id header) then I'd say go for it! But for those of us who already filter our mail into folders these [tags] are useless clutter that take up valuable screen real estate. If they break dkim that's a whole 'nother category of problems. Personally I'd love to see us be conservative in what we send, but I recognize that my view on this is biased. On some level I have sympathy for people who feel that they are stuck with clients that don't have advanced features, but there are so many competent clients available for free that it's hard for me to sympathize with the view that I need you to do this for me so that I can manage my workflow better. When you add to that If I filter to folders then I just ignore the mail it starts to sound a lot more like a personal problem. :) Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On 8/5/2011 2:56 PM, Doug Barton wrote: To me it boils down to you saying in effect, Here is my way of working with e-mail, and I'd like the IETF to support it. If there was a way that we could do that which had no impact on people who don't work that way (such as the List-Id header) then I'd say go for it! But for those of us who already filter our mail into folders these [tags] are useless clutter that take up valuable screen real estate. Doug, Perhaps you missed the part about this being common practice, including for other IETF mailing lists? You are already suffering with the useless clutter. The incremental pain for you is going to be nil. If they break dkim that's a whole 'nother category of problems. DKIM is designed for to deal with one posting and one delivery. Mailing lists take delivery and re-post. For almost all scenarios, DKIM was not intended to survive re-posting. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
Yes. No. No. Yes. Maybe. Let me elaborate. On Aug 3, 2011, at 12:35 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: The visual cue this convention provides is helpful and it's an extremely widespread convention. +1. The effect on users is completely different, even though the same information is in there somewhere. And the least fortunate users are both stuck with unhelpful user agents AND not in a position to do the kind of processing that would add the tag automatically. So adding the tag is good from a usability perspective. On Aug 3, 2011, at 1:53 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: The IETF list already inserts the all the proper list- headers: ...It's all I need for sorting . OTOH, I can also remove the [ietf] tag if the list starts putting it in there. So count me as mildly disliking this proposal. Yes, this is step back from standards to informal practice, so adding the tag is bad from an IETF/formal perspective, though perhaps only mildly so. On Aug 3, 2011, at 5:44 PM, Tony Hansen wrote: -1 cause it breaks signatures It's certainly bad if it breaks signatures. On the other hand, if we can preserve the authentication results so that we have confidence in both the sender and the list exploder -- including the different forms of the Subject: field -- that would be a nice technical exercise/demonstration and a reference DKIM-handling example for other list software. So I think this largely depends on how hard someone is willing to work on it. -- Nathaniel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
-1. This list complies with RFC 2919, which alleviates the need for the horrible, unscalable, obsolete, ugly kludge of Subject-line tags. I suggest that anyone who really, *really* wants them on their copies of messages arrange to have them added locally (perhaps by procmail or similar) and not force them on those of us who have chosen mail processing software that correctly uses List-Id. ---rsk ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
Hi all, I seem to remember discussions about this a long time ago, but searching through archives gets no love... How do folk feel about having asking for subject_prefix to be set on the IETF Discussion List (AKA this one!) - this will prefix mail sent to this list with something like [Discussion] or [IETF] or something [0]. Background: I used to just filter this list into a mailbox / folder (based upon List-Id:), but then I would forget to read it, so I have removed that procmail rule. Having a prefix would make it easier to tell at a glance what list the mail is associated with, what it might be about, etc. Yes, I *could* just make a procmail rule to munge the subject myself, but that seems icky, and solving it for the general case (and making Discussions more like the other IETF lists feels better). W [0]: Let the bike-shedding on actual prefix used begin... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
How do folk feel about having asking for subject_prefix to be set on the IETF Discussion List (AKA this one!) - this will prefix mail sent to this list with something like [Discussion] or [IETF] or something [0]. +1 The visual cue this convention provides is helpful and it's an extremely widespread convention. [Discussion] could apply to any group, anywhere, whereas [IETF] nicely identifies exactly this list. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On 8/3/11 10:35 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: How do folk feel about having asking for subject_prefix to be set on the IETF Discussion List (AKA this one!) - this will prefix mail sent to this list with something like [Discussion] or [IETF] or something [0]. +1 The visual cue this convention provides is helpful and it's an extremely widespread convention. [Discussion] could apply to any group, anywhere, whereas [IETF] nicely identifies exactly this list. Yes please! /psa ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 09:35:16AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote: How do folk feel about having asking for subject_prefix to be set on the IETF Discussion List (AKA this one!) - this will prefix mail sent to this list with something like [Discussion] or [IETF] or something [0]. The visual cue this convention provides is helpful and it's an extremely widespread convention. maybe we should eat our own dog food as served in RFC 2919 or, to touch another popular issue, declare 2919 Historic? -Peter PS: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On 8/3/11 10:40 AM, Peter Koch wrote: PS: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00 Given that almost all of the WG lists have subject prefixes, it seems most folks find your arguments less than compelling. /psa ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On 8/3/2011 9:40 AM, Peter Koch wrote: The visual cue this convention provides is helpful and it's an extremely widespread convention. maybe we should eat our own dog food as served in RFC 2919 or, to touch another popular issue, declare 2919 Historic? Peter, That's a rather odd suggestion to make * in a message that conforms to that RFC * with many of us using mail software (such as Thunderbird) that detects List-* fields and adapts, such as offering a Reply List command when present So... -1. d/ ps. Besides its being benign to have redundant indication of list handling, the different conventions serve different purposes. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Warren Kumari wrote: I seem to remember discussions about this a long time ago, but searching through archives gets no love... How do folk feel about having asking for subject_prefix to be set on the IETF Discussion List (AKA this one!) - this will prefix mail sent to this list with something like [Discussion] or [IETF] or something [0]. I'd REALLY like such a tag ... almost all the other lists I subscribe to use such a prefix. [IETF] would be my preference. Short is good. I'm happy to let those who prefer to not have such a prefix setup their procmail rules to remove it. -:) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
03.08.2011 20:13, David Morris wrote: On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Warren Kumari wrote: I seem to remember discussions about this a long time ago, but searching through archives gets no love... How do folk feel about having asking for subject_prefix to be set on the IETF Discussion List (AKA this one!) - this will prefix mail sent to this list with something like [Discussion] or [IETF] or something [0]. I'd REALLY like such a tag ... almost all the other lists I subscribe to use such a prefix. [IETF] would be my preference. Short is good. I'm happy to let those who prefer to not have such a prefix setup their procmail rules to remove it.-:) +1. I approve of such idea. Mykyta ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On 8/3/11 7:13 PM, David Morris wrote: On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Warren Kumari wrote: I seem to remember discussions about this a long time ago, but searching through archives gets no love... How do folk feel about having asking for subject_prefix to be set on the IETF Discussion List (AKA this one!) - this will prefix mail sent to this list with something like [Discussion] or [IETF] or something [0]. I'd REALLY like such a tag ... almost all the other lists I subscribe to use such a prefix. [IETF] would be my preference. Short is good. I'm happy to let those who prefer to not have such a prefix setup their procmail rules to remove it.-:) s/procmail rules/sieve filter/ :-) /rolf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On 8/3/2011 9:40 AM, Peter Koch wrote: On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 09:35:16AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote: How do folk feel about having asking for subject_prefix to be set on the IETF Discussion List (AKA this one!) - this will prefix mail sent to this list with something like [Discussion] or [IETF] or something [0]. The visual cue this convention provides is helpful and it's an extremely widespread convention. This would allow the IETF mailers to identify and for the rest of us to better setup SUBJECT Filters for our mailing so this makes sense and is an easy fix which has been requested several times over the last couple of years. todd maybe we should eat our own dog food as served in RFC 2919 or, to touch another popular issue, declare 2919 Historic? -Peter PS:http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Todd S. Glassey This is from my personal email account and any materials from this account come with personal disclaimers. Further I OPT OUT of any and all commercial emailings. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 09:35:16AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote: How do folk feel about having asking for subject_prefix to be set on the IETF Discussion List (AKA this one!) - this will prefix mail sent to this list with something like [Discussion] or [IETF] or something [0]. The visual cue this convention provides is helpful and it's an extremely widespread convention. maybe we should eat our own dog food as served in RFC 2919 or, to touch another popular issue, declare 2919 Historic? The IETF list already inserts the all the proper list- headers: List-Id: IETF-Discussion ietf.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf, mailto:ietf-requ...@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe List-Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf List-Post: mailto:ietf@ietf.org List-Help: mailto:ietf-requ...@ietf.org?subject=help List-Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf, mailto:ietf-requ...@ietf.org?subject=subscribe It's all I need for sorting and, for that matter, I can trivially set up rules to add the [ietf] or whatever tag myself if I prefer that. As others have pointed out, we even have a standard for doing this stuff. OTOH, I can also remove the [ietf] tag if the list starts putting it in there. So count me as mildly disliking this proposal. -Peter PS: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00 Pretty much agree with the points raised in this draft. Ned ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
happy to let those who prefer to not have such a prefix setup their procmail rules to remove it.-:) Gee, I was about to say I was happy for people who want a subject tag to add one using procmail or whatever. I'm not unalterably opposed to subject tags, but I believe that the IETF's dogfood is of the List-ID: flavor. R's, John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On 8/3/11 12:21 PM, John Levine wrote: happy to let those who prefer to not have such a prefix setup their procmail rules to remove it.-:) Gee, I was about to say I was happy for people who want a subject tag to add one using procmail or whatever. I'm not unalterably opposed to subject tags, but I believe that the IETF's dogfood is of the List-ID: flavor. Which WG list do you suggest should be the guinea pig? Or shall we change them all at once to remove the dreaded subject prefix? :) /psa ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On 3 Aug 2011, at 21:21, John Levine wrote: happy to let those who prefer to not have such a prefix setup their procmail rules to remove it.-:) Gee, I was about to say I was happy for people who want a subject tag to add one using procmail or whatever. I'm not unalterably opposed to subject tags, but I believe that the IETF's dogfood is of the List-ID: flavor. Yes. It follows the same construction, and rationale, of not messing around with the Reply-To: field, when enough information is available in list software-specific headers to build whatever user indications or reply functionality is required. But I do understand people's desire of these sorts of tags, and I know for a fact that many commonly-used UAs simply have neither the filtering nor display capabilities to resist them. So I would not oppose a general motion to make this change. It's one less nice thing about the ietf list, though. -1 +/- 0.25 Cheers, Sabahattin ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
I'm not unalterably opposed to subject tags, but I believe that the IETF's dogfood is of the List-ID: flavor. Which WG list do you suggest should be the guinea pig? Or shall we change them all at once to remove the dreaded subject prefix? :) I said I'm not unalterably opposed. My advice would be to leave well enough alone. If the IETF used a better list manager, the subject tag would be a per-user option, but n ... Regards, John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies, Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
Peter Saint-Andre wrote: John Levine wrote: I'm not unalterably opposed to subject tags, but I believe that the IETF's dogfood is of the List-ID: flavor. Which WG list do you suggest should be the guinea pig? Or shall we change them all at once to remove the dreaded subject prefix? :) What exactly are you discussing? List-Id: is present on this list already, and the WG mailing lists I'm subscribed to have both, List-Id: and subject_prefix. subject_prefix will work even with very ancient MUAs, such as the one I use, so I'm OK. But the subject_prefix does not scale well when multiple IETF mailings lists are CC-ed and discussion ensues (replying to all lists). Will a subject_prefix confuse MUAs that support threading for cross-posted discussions? -Martin ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
* Warren Kumari wrote: Background: I used to just filter this list into a mailbox / folder (based upon List-Id:), but then I would forget to read it, so I have removed that procmail rule. Having a prefix would make it easier to tell at a glance what list the mail is associated with, what it might be about, etc. Yes, I *could* just make a procmail rule to munge the subject myself, but that seems icky, and solving it for the general case (and making Discussions more like the other IETF lists feels better). If you would like your mail client to identify the mailing list next to the subject header, then it seems your client should just do that, which would avoid all the problems munging the subject header entails. Seems to be a popular feature aswell, so I'd think clients support this... -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On 8/3/11 1:26 PM, Martin Rex wrote: subject_prefix will work even with very ancient MUAs, such as the one I use, so I'm OK. But the subject_prefix does not scale well when multiple IETF mailings lists are CC-ed and discussion ensues (replying to all lists). Doctor, it hurts when I do that. /psa ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On 8/3/2011 12:22 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: Hi all, I seem to remember discussions about this a long time ago, but searching through archives gets no love... How do folk feel about having asking for subject_prefix to be set on the IETF Discussion List (AKA this one!) - this will prefix mail sent to this list with something like [Discussion] or [IETF] or something [0]. -1 cause it breaks signatures This might be mitigated if authentication-results support were added. Tony Hansen PS. I do my sorting based on the To/Cc field as much as anything. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On Wed Aug 3 22:44:27 2011, Tony Hansen wrote: PS. I do my sorting based on the To/Cc field as much as anything. I do Sieve to assign IMAP keywords based on the List-Id header field which my MUA then uses to colourize differently in the summary listing based on the settings it finds in ACAP. Do I win? (I'm largely against subject prefixes, but not sufficient to jump up and down about). Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On 08/03/2011 11:21, John Levine wrote: happy to let those who prefer to not have such a prefix setup their procmail rules to remove it.-:) Gee, I was about to say I was happy for people who want a subject tag to add one using procmail or whatever. I'm not unalterably opposed to subject tags, but I believe that the IETF's dogfood is of the List-ID: flavor. +1 on both counts. -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
At 09:48 AM 8/3/2011, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Given that almost all of the WG lists have subject prefixes, it seems most folks find your arguments less than compelling. Not really, it's the default setting for the WG lists and nobody bothered changing the setting. As mentioned in draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00, the tag is ambiguous when used for list identification. Discussions about subject tagging are rarely about compelling arguments; it's a religious debate. The tagging was introduced due to the inability of a well-known MUA to implement RFC 2919 for messages sorting. As time went by, people viewed it as the norm. As this is a matter of local preference, it is better to leave it to the subscriber to add the subject tag if he/she believes that it is useful. Regards, -sm ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
Dave Cridland wrote: On Wed Aug 3 22:44:27 2011, Tony Hansen wrote: PS. I do my sorting based on the To/Cc field as much as anything. I do Sieve to assign IMAP keywords based on the List-Id header field which my MUA then uses to colourize differently in the summary listing based on the settings it finds in ACAP. Do I win? (I'm largely against subject prefixes, but not sufficient to jump up and down about). +1, In theory I am against any mail alterations. But the list tag has helped MUAs that do not have rules filtering or the user is not savvy enough to figure out. We avoided it for a long time in our list server product, and when it was finally added, it became and remain very popular. It is now the default setup for a new list. I will say today, more MUA are aware of mailing list with automated unsubscribe features (by looking at the 5322.List-X added headers). I personally use these to separate folders since the subject tag may be turned off by the server. Some Negatives: When DKIM was introduced, a mail integrity technology, now needed to work with a natural mail integrity breaking system. Even though DKIM offered a body tag (l=) feature to help exclude list footer text in the body hash verification process, changing the subject tag broke original signatures. List resigners help alleviate this issue, but at the expense of losing original DKIM integrity information opening a loop hole for security concerns and potential interoperability issues with submission downlinks (members) with DKIM security support. -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
On Aug 3, 2011, at 12:22 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: How do folk feel about having asking for subject_prefix to be set on the IETF Discussion List (AKA this one!) - this will prefix mail sent to this list with something like [Discussion] or [IETF] or something [0]. My preference is to not have these prefixes. I have all of my list mail go to a separate folder for each list. The subject prefixes just add clutter. That said, I realize a lot of people don't use mail folders and have dysfunctional user agents. I'll be annoyed if a subject prefix is added, but I'll cope. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
-Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keith Moore Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 4:33 PM To: IETF list Subject: Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss? My preference is to not have these prefixes. I have all of my list mail go to a separate folder for each list. The subject prefixes just add clutter. That said, I realize a lot of people don't use mail folders and have dysfunctional user agents. I'll be annoyed if a subject prefix is added, but I'll cope. That about sums up my view as well. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
