Heck I would just be happy if Outlook rules worked consistently and applied to server store...
-----Original Message----- From: home [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 11:47 AM To: struts-user Subject: Re: [Proposal] Thread Topic Identification (was [BS] Are we getting o ff the topic) wouldn´t it be nice if there was a convention of how filtering rules have to look like? That way one could just import them in to any mail program *sigh* ..... Regards, Michael ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 5:32 PM Subject: RE: [Proposal] Thread Topic Identification (was [BS] Are we getting o ff the topic) > > Even if they come close like: > > [tiles] > [tiles problem] > [tiles help] > > They would still be useful and sortable and to a degree filterable . > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ekbush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 11:14 AM > To: struts-user > Subject: Re: [Proposal] Thread Topic Identification (was [BS] Are we > getting o ff the topic) > > > Maybe we could sweet-talk Craig into getting something put on the site > about using them? I don't know if he'd be willing/able to permit it (or > > get it permitted), but we could ... do something like has been done with > > the commons, at least. There is a little blurb up listed with their > list info that says: > > *Important* > > Since there are multiple projects in commons, please add [/projectname/ > ] at the beginning of the subject. > > ... and I can vouch for the fact that people use the [name] tags pretty > regularly. You most certainly could filter on it. The thing to do > would be to shun those who do not follow the convention. If someone > isn't willing to take the time to learn a communities > standards/conventions, are they really worthy of help? Of course, thats > > a bit more coarse-grained than was proposed, and I rather like the tags > proposed, but maybe it's a suitable compromise. > > So we'd have something like: > > * [core] > * [validator] > * [tiles] > > That's nowhere near as exhaustive, and wouldn't provide as fine-grained > control, but I think _anyone_ could manage to remember them ... It could > > still be useful, I think. Any more exhaustive of a list would (IMHO) > need to be posted somewhere folks would see (and read!) when they sign > up for the list, if you want to hold them accountable for it to the > point you would shun them. I suppose a person could just email them a > list of tags and suggest (nicely) that they use them if they want > answers to questions ... but ... > > My $0.02 > > Eddie > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Afternoon chaps! > > > >My problem with starting these "[topic] subject" headers for our emails > is that every time a new person posts to the list you'll be going > through the same hell telling them how to format their headers > correctly, (as well as how to search the archive, how to phrase > questions . . . .etc) To me it would be nice if everyone done this, but > chances are it's not going to happen. The few people who try to do it > are going to get annoyed that no one else does etc. Getting people to > put half decent headers on the emails would be a start. How many time > have you seen things like "help" or "struts problem"? Why else are these > people posting to the group? These headers might help with these > problems, but I doubt it would ever be enough to filter your emails. > > > >Totally agree that making 2 list will just encourage double posting > too! > > > >Regards > >IV > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
