In other words, I'm also in favor of adding something like [RUBY-TALK] to
the subject line on the mailing list.
···
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 08:41:33AM +0900, Phil wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yukihiro Matsumoto [mailto:matz@ruby-lang.org]
> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 1:25 AM
> To: ruby-talk ML
> Subject: Re: subject line
>
>
> It used to. But many claimed it's uncommon and inconvenient in the
> English speaking community, so we abandoned long ago. If you start
> discussion, and people accept the change, we'd love to make it back.
> But we'd have to coordinate with list-news gateway at least, when we
> change.
I'm for it. It largely irritates me if there is no "tag" in the subject
line, since I have to parse the email more thoroughly to screen my messages.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Phillip J. Haack: "Productivity is not about speed. It's about velocity.
You can be fast, but if you're going in the wrong direction, you're not
helping anyone."
Something tells me that those who object to the list software adding
[RUBY] to the subject line would also object to replies mysteriously
including an added [RUBY] in the subject line. As such, I think using
the possibility for adding that as a justification for preventing the
list software from doing so is a bad idea.
···
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 07:22:40PM +0900, Matthias W??chter wrote:
On 03.09.2007 07:41, Stefan Rusterholz wrote:
> Devi Web Development wrote:
>> I don't know who would make this sort of decision, but could we put
>> [RubyTalk] or [Ruby] or something at the beginning of all messages? It's
>> a
>> fairly common practice on listserves.
>
> Another "No" vote here. As mentioned: you can always let your e-mail app
> filter the mails for you and if you need it, let it insert that [Ruby]
> or whatever prefix.
Most people are not aware of the possibility to filter automatically
by mail headers other than Subject, To or CC (as suggested,
X-ML-Name == "ruby-talk" or List-Id == "ruby-talk.ruby-lang.org").
They sit and watch tons of Ruby-Talk mails filling their inbox
without filtering. They like to spend the day (or the evening)
manually tagging all mail with a special subject prefix like
"[Ruby-Talk]" and moving it to a folder, or, even better, read the
intersting ones and delete the others. It makes them happy and they
think, they had done a lot of work! They are scared of untagged
mail, because they could (or already have) inadvertantly delete
important inbox stuff trating it as mailing list stuff. That's why
they want the prefix.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Rudy Giuliani: "You have free speech so I can be heard."
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 08:41:53AM +0900, Dan Zwell wrote:
>
don't see an advantage to adding [Ruby]. Further, I don't want to give
up even six (really seven) characters that we can use to express
ourselves. Thoughts?
Thoughts:
Not everyone filters ruby-talk into its own "folder" in a mail user
agent. Some of us prefer to have all incoming email appear in the same
inbox list, but want to be able to filter by eye.
Considering even the typical CLI-only terminal has an 80-character
width,
I don't see how six characters is such a deal-breaker. There's
something
wrong if people are sending 70+ character subject lines, anyway.
And your client of choice doesn't support rewriting the subject as a
filter?
I don't know who would make this sort of decision, but could we put
[RubyTalk] or [Ruby] or something at the beginning of all messages? It's a
fairly common practice on listserves.
------------------------------------------
Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney
Devi Web Development
Devi.WebMaster@gMail.com
It would increase the size of the Subject: line. This is a problem,
as it limits the amount of useful information that can be seen in the
Subject: line, making it harder to scan through a list of subject lines
looking for interesting subjects.
Mail can easily be filtered based on the "To:" line. This list has too
much volume not to be filtered (probably by everyone that uses it), so I
don't see an advantage to adding [Ruby]. Further, I don't want to give
up even six (really seven) characters that we can use to express
ourselves. Thoughts?
Thoughts:
Not everyone filters ruby-talk into its own "folder" in a mail user
agent. Some of us prefer to have all incoming email appear in the same
inbox list, but want to be able to filter by eye.
That's why I have my MUA color Ruby-Talk posts red. They stand out just fine.
Considering even the typical CLI-only terminal has an 80-character width,
I don't see how six characters is such a deal-breaker. There's something
wrong if people are sending 70+ character subject lines, anyway.
Do you also show the sender and the date received on that line? I think you'll find that most MUA setups give far less than 80 subject characters by default. Mine sure does, and it's not a terminal application.
James Edward Gray II
···
On Sep 3, 2007, at 1:16 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 08:41:53AM +0900, Dan Zwell wrote:
Considering even the typical CLI-only terminal has an 80-character width,
I don't see how six characters is such a deal-breaker. There's something
wrong if people are sending 70+ character subject lines, anyway.
For purposes of courtesy, I haven't done anything like that, despite the
greater convenience it would give me. I'm tempted, however, to go ahead
and add [RUBY] at the beginning of mail subject lines after some of the
responses I've seen in this discussion thread to the couple of us who
have expressed a preference for a list identifier in the subject. One
person even went so far as to tell me I should go ahead and do that,
since one person doing so wouldn't be such a big burden. Others seem
bent to the task of treating anyone that likes identifiers in subject
lines like the slow children.
It gets old. I'm not accusing you of behaving in that manner -- I just
found this a handy place to mention it, because you commented on the
discourteous practice of changing subject lines to conflict with list
policy. It's something I haven't done specifically because of the reason
you indicated, despite the temptation of doing so in part for the benefit
of people who think theirs are the only problems worth addressing.
···
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 07:52:58AM +0900, Bertram Scharpf wrote:
Hi,
Am Dienstag, 04. Sep 2007, 07:34:48 +0900 schrieb Bertram Scharpf:
> Am Montag, 03. Sep 2007, 07:48:25 +0900 schrieb Devi Web Development:
> > I don't know who would make this sort of decision, but could we put
> > [RubyTalk] or [Ruby] or something at the beginning of all messages? It's a
> > fairly common practice on listserves.
>
> You can easily build the feature yourself when you like
> it.
>
> subj = headers[ :subject].first.sub /^(\s*re:)*\s*/i, "\\1 [RubyTalk] "
> headers.replace :subject, subj
Then, of course, you should remove it by hand every time you
hit the "Reply" button. I don't recommend it.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
awj @reddit: "The terms never and always are never always true."
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 09:42:46AM +0900, Travis D Warlick Jr wrote:
Devi Web Development wrote:
I don't know who would make this sort of decision, but could we put
[RubyTalk] or [Ruby] or something at the beginning of all messages? It's a
fairly common practice on listserves.
One more reason for objection: Many people use the [LABEL] notation for
categorizing specific messages for things like announcements [ANN] and quizzes
[QUIZ].
So . . . are we somehow prevented from adding [ANN] after [RUBY]?
Why would you ever take offense to such a statement? Dude, I think
maybe you're a little too close to your MUA.
T.
···
On Sep 4, 3:47 pm, Chad Perrin <per...@apotheon.com> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 04:01:56AM +0900, Trans wrote:
> On Sep 2, 3:48 pm, "Devi Web Development" <devi.webmas...@gmail.com> > > wrote:
> > I don't know who would make this sort of decision, but could we put
> > [RubyTalk] or [Ruby] or something at the beginning of all messages? It's a
> > fairly common practice on listserves.
In short, it looks like people on average would prefer it stay the way it
is. I never imagined this would receive so much response and debate. Thanks
for responding.
···
------------------------------------------
Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney
Devi Web Development Devi.WebMaster@gMail.com
I'm pretty sure that's not what Matz was talking about. The messages use to contain an id number in the header. This makes it easy to reference old posts.
I'm fine with the old ids, but I seriously hope we never add something like [RUBY-TALK]. That pushes the subject to the right, hiding valuable information and it's not needed in filtering, as many have pointed out. That makes it a lose, lose change in my book.
James Edward Gray II
···
On Sep 3, 2007, at 1:12 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 08:41:33AM +0900, Phil wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Yukihiro Matsumoto [mailto:matz@ruby-lang.org]
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 1:25 AM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: subject line
It used to. But many claimed it's uncommon and inconvenient in the
English speaking community, so we abandoned long ago. If you start
discussion, and people accept the change, we'd love to make it back.
But we'd have to coordinate with list-news gateway at least, when we
change.
I'm for it. It largely irritates me if there is no "tag" in the subject
line, since I have to parse the email more thoroughly to screen my messages.
Ditto, a lot.
In other words, I'm also in favor of adding something like [RUBY-TALK] to
the subject line on the mailing list.
. . . and you wouldn't complain if all my responses contained [RUBY] in
the subject line?
···
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 03:19:57AM +0900, Stefan Rusterholz wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 08:41:53AM +0900, Dan Zwell wrote:
>> >
>> don't see an advantage to adding [Ruby]. Further, I don't want to give
>> up even six (really seven) characters that we can use to express
>> ourselves. Thoughts?
>
> Thoughts:
>
> Not everyone filters ruby-talk into its own "folder" in a mail user
> agent. Some of us prefer to have all incoming email appear in the same
> inbox list, but want to be able to filter by eye.
>
> Considering even the typical CLI-only terminal has an 80-character
> width,
> I don't see how six characters is such a deal-breaker. There's
> something
> wrong if people are sending 70+ character subject lines, anyway.
And your client of choice doesn't support rewriting the subject as a
filter?
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Amazon.com interview candidate: "When C++ is your hammer, everything starts
to look like your thumb."
>
>Thoughts:
>
>Not everyone filters ruby-talk into its own "folder" in a mail user
>agent. Some of us prefer to have all incoming email appear in the
>same
>inbox list, but want to be able to filter by eye.
That's why I have my MUA color Ruby-Talk posts red. They stand out
just fine.
That's nice for you. Others here are not you.
>Considering even the typical CLI-only terminal has an 80-character
>width,
>I don't see how six characters is such a deal-breaker. There's
>something
>wrong if people are sending 70+ character subject lines, anyway.
Do you also show the sender and the date received on that line? I
think you'll find that most MUA setups give far less than 80 subject
characters by default. Mine sure does, and it's not a terminal
application.
How few, then? Why are you using an MUA that limits you to 20 characters
in viewable subject line? Doesn't that strike you as a little silly?
···
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 03:27:28AM +0900, James Edward Gray II wrote:
On Sep 3, 2007, at 1:16 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Brian K. Reid: "In computer science, we stand on each other's feet."
Do you also show the sender and the date received on that line? I think you'll find that most MUA setups give far less than 80 subject characters by default. Mine sure does, and it's not a terminal application.
Yup. In my thunderbird setup, with columns for subject, sender, date, size, and some flags, I see only about 45-50 characters of subject. I'd lose 12 them to "[RUBY-TALK] ".... I was very glad to see the old "[ruby-talk:NNNNN]" go away a few years ago.
The message ID was nice for references, though. I know it's still there in the headers, but thunderbird has no option (AFAIK) to display just that _one_ additional header field.
···
--
vjoel : Joel VanderWerf : path berkeley edu : 510 665 3407
Respectfully, no, unless it's very short. I suggest sort by the To: line. If that is trouble, then your mail client needs to change, any mailing list like this generates enough mail, that you need either a dedicated e-mail account for the list and/or a mail client capable of simple sorting rules.
> > > I don't know who would make this sort of decision, but could we put
> > > [RubyTalk] or [Ruby] or something at the beginning of all messages? It's a
> > > fairly common practice on listserves.
> >
> > You can easily build the feature yourself when you like
> > it.
>
> Then, of course, you should remove it by hand every time you
> hit the "Reply" button. I don't recommend it.
I'm not accusing you of behaving in that manner -- I just
found this a handy place to mention it, because you commented on the
discourteous practice of changing subject lines to conflict with list
policy.
That's what I meant. I agree changing subject lines is no
good practice at all.
Anyway, sometimes you have to do weird things. A customer
complained because I always remove the most of the quoted
and pre-quoted text. So he has to search his whole mailbox
for all the previous mails it refers to. He obiously never
heard anything of neither mail filtering nor does his mail
client feature threaded views. It doesn't even send
In-Reply-To headers.
Bertram
···
Am Mittwoch, 05. Sep 2007, 07:51:24 +0900 schrieb Chad Perrin:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 07:52:58AM +0900, Bertram Scharpf wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 04. Sep 2007, 07:34:48 +0900 schrieb Bertram Scharpf:
> > Am Montag, 03. Sep 2007, 07:48:25 +0900 schrieb Devi Web Development:
Any time you tell someone to completely change the tools (s)he uses,
you're essentially telling him/her that his/her preferences don't matter.
That's why.
···
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 08:54:22AM +0900, Trans wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:47 pm, Chad Perrin <per...@apotheon.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 04:01:56AM +0900, Trans wrote:
>
> > On Sep 2, 3:48 pm, "Devi Web Development" <devi.webmas...@gmail.com> > > > wrote:
> > > I don't know who would make this sort of decision, but could we put
> > > [RubyTalk] or [Ruby] or something at the beginning of all messages? It's a
> > > fairly common practice on listserves.
>
> > Why not save yourself all that grief and use
>
> > http://groups.google.com/group/ruby-talk-google?hl=en
>
> Maybe because some of us *like* our MUAs. That was a fairly insensitive,
> even offensive, answer. I hope you only meant that as a joke.
Why would you ever take offense to such a statement? Dude, I think
maybe you're a little too close to your MUA.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Leon Festinger: "A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him
you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts and figures and he questions
your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."
Just a quick question; Why not add in the X-ML-Name (it was refered to
earlier in this thread) to the header? It may not be a fix-all, but
wouldn't that come close enough for what some people want to see within
the subject line?
···
On 08:50 Sat 08 Sep , Devi Web Development wrote:
In short, it looks like people on average would prefer it stay the way it
is. I never imagined this would receive so much response and debate. Thanks
for responding.
------------------------------------------
Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney
Devi Web Development
Devi.WebMaster@gMail.com
In other words, I'm also in favor of adding something like [RUBY- TALK] to
the subject line on the mailing list.
I'm pretty sure that's not what Matz was talking about. The messages use to contain an id number in the header. This makes it easy to reference old posts.
I'm fine with the old ids, but I seriously hope we never add something like [RUBY-TALK]. That pushes the subject to the right, hiding valuable information and it's not needed in filtering, as many have pointed out. That makes it a lose, lose change in my book.
D'oh!
While I wouldn't mind a [RUBY-TALK] prefix, the old id numbers
in the subject, while convenient, thwarted my ability to sort-by-subject. (Note: The message id is still contained in
the header. I presume you were referring to the one in the
subject specifically.)
Of the 24 software development related mailing lists I subscribe to, most have the [whatever-list] subject prefix. I don't really
care either way, as I filter by To: or Cc: anyway.
But I would NOT like to bring back the old ruby-talk id's in the
subject. (Maybe if I didn't use Outlook Express I could sort
by thread instead of sort by subject. But currently, sort by
subject is all I've got.)
Regards,
Bill
···
From: "James Edward Gray II" <james@grayproductions.net>
A message ID number would be similarly clearly identifying for me, as no
other lists to which I'm currently subscribed provide an ID number in the
subject line -- so, from where I'm sitting, it'd achieve much the same
thing (in addition to giving us easier archive searching). So -- fine,
that works too.
I find it simply mind-boggling that people are so upset about a few
characters being "lost" for subject lines. How often do you send emails
with 70+ character length subject lines? How often do you feel dumb for
having done so?
···
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 03:23:02AM +0900, James Edward Gray II wrote:
On Sep 3, 2007, at 1:12 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 08:41:33AM +0900, Phil wrote:
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Yukihiro Matsumoto [mailto:matz@ruby-lang.org]
>>>
>>>It used to. But many claimed it's uncommon and inconvenient in the
>>>English speaking community, so we abandoned long ago. If you start
>>>discussion, and people accept the change, we'd love to make it back.
>>>But we'd have to coordinate with list-news gateway at least, when we
>>>change.
>>
>>I'm for it. It largely irritates me if there is no "tag" in the
>>subject
>>line, since I have to parse the email more thoroughly to screen my
>>messages.
>
>Ditto, a lot.
>
>In other words, I'm also in favor of adding something like [RUBY-
>TALK] to
>the subject line on the mailing list.
I'm pretty sure that's not what Matz was talking about. The messages
use to contain an id number in the header. This makes it easy to
reference old posts.
I'm fine with the old ids, but I seriously hope we never add
something like [RUBY-TALK]. That pushes the subject to the right,
hiding valuable information and it's not needed in filtering, as many
have pointed out. That makes it a lose, lose change in my book.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
McCloctnick the Lucid: "The first rule of magic is simple. Don't waste your
time waving your hands and hopping when a rock or a club will do."
I'm pretty sure that's not what Matz was talking about. The messages use to contain an id number in the header. This makes it easy to reference old posts.
If you're using konqueror, you can set it up (or was it a default?) so that typing "ruby-talk:267381" in the location bar opens that page. Some people got in the habit of using that notation to reference ruby-talk posts, but it doesn't seem to be used much any more.
···
--
vjoel : Joel VanderWerf : path berkeley edu : 510 665 3407
