Subject: [apps-discuss] meta - removing list banner?

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:15:43 -0700

What do people think about removing the [apps-discuss] banner from the Subject line on this list?

IME it just makes it harder to fit the actual content of the Subject line into your reader.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Tobias Gondrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:21:55 +0100

I would prefer to keep the mailing-list banner. If you like feel free to 
make it shorter.
It helps quick sorting.
Just my 2cents.
Tobias

On 20/04/15 18:15, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:27:55 -0700

> I would prefer to keep the mailing-list banner. If you like feel free to

+1

I've always found those tags for mailing lists quite helpful.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Ira McDonald <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 13:39:21 -0400

Hi Mark,

I'm opposed to removing the banner.

I get messages from over 40 mailing lists in 6 standards bodies.  The
banners help,
when trying to find time-critical messages.

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto: [email-masked]
Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
Summer  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:45:27 -0700

Ok, it sounds like people are still getting utility out of it, no need to continue the thread. 

Personally, I filter on list-id...

Sent from my iPhone

> On 20 Apr 2015, at 10:39 am, Ira McDonald <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> I get messages from over 40 mailing lists in 6 standards bodies.  The banners help,

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:46:04 -0700 (PDT)

> I've always found those tags for mailing lists quite helpful.

Same here. This one is a bit long but still not unreasonable.

				Ned

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:57:02 -0700

> Same here. This one is a bit long but still not unreasonable.

You're not the only one to say that.  We could shorten it to "apps" if
people would find that helpful, though anyone with an apps-discuss rule
would then have to change to match.

-MSK

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:58:42 -0700

> Personally, I filter on list-id...

This ought to be better.  More structured by virtue of explicitly
labeling the nature of the attribute string, etc.

Yet the current reality it isn't, in most/all MUAs.  In fact, relying
only on List-ID would represent a serious /reduction/ in utility.

This goes to the challenges of creating supporting infrastructure for a
construct.

The current convention allows extremely useful, one-click sorting in
many MUAs.  The major win is that it is at the beginning of the Subject
field; so the column sort mechanism with message summary lists, works
just right.

By contrast, List-ID is almost entirely unknown to MUAs.  Consider what
it would take to upgrade each of them, to support this construct.

Would it be cleaner?  Sure.

Now go convince all those MUA developers to do the work.

d/

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:00:03 -0600

> What do people think about removing the [apps-discuss] banner from the Subject line on this list?
No. They are useful as additional email filters.
Especially when the messages get cross posted or you get Cc'd, it helps to filter them it into the correct folder

-- 

Doug Royer - (http://K7DMR.us / http://DougRoyer.US)
[email-masked]
714-989-6135

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:01:04 -0700

On 4/20/2015 10:57 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> You're not the only one to say that.  We could shorten it to "apps

some -* conventions have developed, to distinguish sub-groups.  So
<group-subgroup> is more verbose, but also more helpful, with -discuss
being one of the standard choices.

Perhaps we could do some trailblazing and try to make -gen (for general)
be the convention, thereby saving 4 characters?

d/

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:30:31 -0700

I don't use it for sorting, I use it to filter into per-list IMAP mailboxes on the server side, using SIEVE. But most MUAs can also do that client-side, IME>

Cheers,

> On 20 Apr 2015, at 10:58 am, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 16:04:29 -0400

> Personally, I filter on list-id...

Right, which is the right way to do it if you are moving stuff into a 
"list-id" folder.   But visually, the list subject tag helps when its 
all keep in one "in-box."

-- 
HLS

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 16:06:03 -0400

> IME it just makes it harder to fit the actual content of the Subject line into your reader.

-1

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 Apr 2015 02:18:13 -0000

>only on List-ID would represent a serious /reduction/ in utility.

It's true -- Yahoo and Hotmail still can't sort on list-id.  Gmail
can, I think most desktop MUAs can.

R's,
John

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:29:28 +0100

---- Original Message -----
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ned Freed" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "IETF Apps Discuss" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 6:57 PM
> > > > I would prefer to keep the mailing-list banner. If you like feel
free
> > to

I agree it is most useful to have but shorter would be better but not
shorter than three a-z characters.

Of course I will have to change my rules (plural) but given notice that
it is coming, then that is easy to manage (unlike unannounced changes to
the IETF data tracker website especially when most of it does not work
with IE8 mumble grumble)

Tom Petch

> -MSK

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:57:25 -0500

I don't need the banner for filtering, but I do use it for visual
filtering in a big IETF mail folder.  FWIW.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:17:07 -0700

> can, I think most desktop MUAs can.

It isn't obvious to me how Thunderbird could sort on List-ID.

d/

---

From: Brandon Long <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:23:12 -0700

Do you mean search?  I don't think Gmail sorts on anything except received
date.  We do have the list: and listid: operators, however.

Brandon

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:28:43 -0700

I am used to considering the column-sort of a folder summary display as
being a 'sort', and rules for moving/copying to different folders as
being 'filtering'.  Search is a third function, whether within or across
folders.

It is common for MUAs to permit clicking on the column label, to have it
serve as the primary sort key.

d/

On 4/23/2015 1:23 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
> Do you mean search?  I don't think Gmail sorts on anything except
> received date.  We do have the list: and listid: operators, however.
> 
> Brandon
> 
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Apr 2015 17:11:05 -0400

> date.  We do have the list: and listid: operators, however.

I was using sort in the usual (among people who use procmail and similar 
tools) sense of putting it into folders or the like, what Dave calls 
filtering.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 05:32:39 -0700

>> received

     The essential semantic point, for this thread, is that email
software often has a convenient column-based mechanism for arranging the
order of messages seen in the summary message list.  Clicking on a
column makes it the primary key for organizing messages.  This is
extremely convenient and useful.

     Having the [list-id] convention at the beginning of the Subject
line permits easy organizing of messages in a folder, according to
mailing list.  Losing that capability would be a significant downgrade
in utility.

     For clarity, I suggest distinguishing this 'within folder' sorting
from any mechanism that puts messages into folders, tabs, or the like.

As for terminology...

Gmail uses the 'sort' term the way John is, but note it also uses
'filtering' (see below):

     "sorts messages into categories, or “tabs.”

Yahoo, Earthlink, Thunderbird, Outlook use the term the way I do (and
the way the dictionary does):

      "You can sort your messages based on different kinds of
information: the date you received them, who you received them from, or
their subject. You can sort messages in a couple of ways: using the
Actions menu or using the column headers."

     "Reading and Sorting Messages -- You can change the order by
clicking one of the column titles at the top of the message list."

     "Sort Mail by the Order It Was Received in Mozilla Thunderbird"

     "So if you wanted to sort all mail by Thread, Descending (newest at
top), the preferences in the config editor will look like this"

     "Click to sort"

And I didn't invent the usage 'filtering'. Eg, Thunderbird, Wikipedia,
Gmail:

     "Organize Your Messages by Using Filters"

     "Email filtering is the processing of email to organize it
according to specified criteria."

     "Using filters, you can automatically send email to a label,
archive, delete,"

d/